Console Conundrum

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I've been pondering if I should jump on the Xbox 360 bandwagon.

Pros:
- Awesome games that I can't get on the PC, or can but only after waiting a long time.
- Much easier to enjoy with friends, so we can all play at once rather than needing to switch off playing single-player games on the computer.
- Don't have to worry about game requirements or needing a new graphics card.
- Frees up the computers so I don't have to debate with the rest of the family when I want to play a game.

Cons:
- Expensive, both for the initial console and the games that I'll play on it.
- No cheat codes, so I'll need to pay more attention and take more time playing in case I want money or want to fight a tough boss.
- A lot noisier, since with the computer I can just plug my headphones in and no one will be disturbed.
- It wouldn't get a lot of use initially, since I'd have to leave it at home. I don't have a TV to use with it in my dorm, and my parents likely would say no if I asked.

I'd discussed the idea with my parents before, and they were okay with it if I kept my grades up, but then Mass Effect came out for PC (which was why I'd initially wanted it) and it was forgotten. Should I ask for this for Christmas or something?

[SilentDragoon]

My best advice would be to first write out a list of 10-12 definitely must-have/will-buy games that you will get on the 360, preferably at least 4-5 that will never hit PC. It helps to make sure you'll actually get good use out of it. If you are going to get one, start paying attention to which you need (I understand there are multiple hardware options) and make sure that one of the other two platforms can't meet the same needs if not better, although Wii probably can't compete if you're looking for games along the lines of Mass Effect.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I know that at least one on my list is Dragon Age: Origins, and Mass Effect II as well as the newer Fable games. Brutal Legend looks interesting too, though I don't know if that would sit well with my mother. She doesn't really understand heavy metal, and the cussing would probably be a big red flag.

[warty goblin]

Definitely PC. You can games for dirt cheap on the PC if you pay a bit of attention. I've got at least three complete games on my PC I obtained 100% legally and paid not a dime for. Granted, they aren't full budget AAA titles, but who cares, they're free games! I also paid $5 for Assassin's Creed.

You also get access to services like Steam or Impulse, which can be very convenient, particularly if you live in the middle of nowhere without a dedicated gaming store, and really help with saving lots of money. The weekend sales can be insane-50% savings are not uncommon, and they definitely go deeper than that. The other benefit is that they make finding older games much, much easier. The PC has the largest back catalog of any system in the world, and between Impulse, Direct2Drive, Steam, Good Old Games, GamersGate etc, an aweful lot of it is easily accessible.

This is also entirely subjective, but I like the PC exclusives much more than those for consoles. I mean are there really any strategy games for the latest console generation? I bought three new strategy games and an expansion pack this year alone. Plus, most of the stuff from Eastern Europe/Russia is PC exclusive, and they do some of the most interesting stuff in the bussiness right now.

[toasty]

This is also entirely subjective, but I like the PC exclusives much more than those for consoles. I mean are there really any strategy games for the latest console generation?

Battle for Middle Earth II, C&C 3 and Halo Wars are all RTS games for the xbox360. Halo Wars being exclusive to the 360.

There are more Strategy games for the PC, admittedly.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Definitely PC. You can games for dirt cheap on the PC if you pay a bit of attention. I've got at least three complete games on my PC I obtained 100% legally and paid not a dime for. Granted, they aren't full budget AAA titles, but who cares, they're free games! I also paid $5 for Assassin's Creed.

You also get access to services like Steam or Impulse, which can be very convenient, particularly if you live in the middle of nowhere without a dedicated gaming store, and really help with saving lots of money. The weekend sales can be insane-50% savings are not uncommon, and they definitely go deeper than that. The other benefit is that they make finding older games much, much easier. The PC has the largest back catalog of any system in the world, and between Impulse, Direct2Drive, Steam, Good Old Games, GamersGate etc, an aweful lot of it is easily accessible.

This is also entirely subjective, but I like the PC exclusives much more than those for consoles. I mean are there really any strategy games for the latest console generation? I bought three new strategy games and an expansion pack this year alone. Plus, most of the stuff from Eastern Europe/Russia is PC exclusive, and they do some of the most interesting stuff in the bussiness right now.

No arguments there, but I'm a bit concerned what with games like Dragon Age: Origins and the like pushing the graphical envelope. Our computer just got a new graphics card, and I'm nervous that it still wouldn't be able to handle Dragon Age.

[warty goblin]

No arguments there, but I'm a bit concerned what with games like Dragon Age: Origins and the like pushing the graphical envelope. Our computer just got a new graphics card, and I'm nervous that it still wouldn't be able to handle Dragon Age.

My system is a 2.1ghz Core Duo dual core with 2 gigs of RAM and a GeForce 7900. Since I got it three years ago, the only game that's come out that I was interested enough in to look at the requirements for that I couldn't run is Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising (requires a faster processor). Everything else I've made at least minimum on, and usually recommended on at least a couple of things. Does it run everything with x4AA in insane resolutions? No, but for most things it provides pretty much as good of an experience as a console would.

Dragon Age's requirements are also really low (which is good, since it looks like an armpit)- a GeForce 6600 and a 1.4ghz dualcore processor. If your graphics card was made in the last few years, you'll be fine. If it's new, you can crank a couple settings.

Really, people's worrying about their PC not being up to spec are much exaggurated. It's not rocket science to keep track of, and if you upgrade your hardware mid console cycle you can probably get a much more powerful machine that'll handily run everything in the current generation and the first part of the next for less than a console on release.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

You're sure? Sure our computer can handle Mass Effect and Fallout 3 just fine now, but Dragon Age: Origins looks a lot more advanced than that. Besides, if I get a console I can play games without needing a computer. There are four people in my house who use that computer (including me.) My sister and brother use it to surf the web and keep up on Facebook. My mother uses it for e-mail, work-related writing and solitaire. I use it for the internet and games. The only ones who don't use it are my youngest brother and my dad, who have their own computers.

[Erloas]

You're sure? Sure our computer can handle Mass Effect and Fallout 3 just fine now, but Dragon Age: Origins looks a lot more advanced than that. Besides, if I get a console I can play games without needing a computer. There are four people in my house who use that computer (including me.) My sister and brother use it to surf the web and keep up on Facebook. My mother uses it for e-mail, work-related writing and solitaire. I use it for the internet and games. The only ones who don't use it are my youngest brother and my dad, who have their own computers.

Well one thing to keep in mind is that requirements aren't really directly related to how good a game looks. Its an ok guideline, but really you just have to check the specs. For instance, a crappy console port like GTA IV takes a lot of resources and doesn't look all that great for it. Some good looking games have really good engines that run well on a very wide range of systems. If you can run Fallout 3 and Mass Effect pretty well on medium settings there is probably only a very few games that you can't run reasonably on some settings.

It might be more practical to pick up a second cheap computer for the price of a console and use that for facebook/web and emails, etc. and free up the better computer for other things. Depending on the computer literacy of people in your house they might fight over the newer computer even if the old one is better just because the newer one is newer.

What are the specs on your computer now?

[Myatar_Panwar]

Some people will argue forever and ever that the only game system you ever need is a computer. While computers are fine and all, consoles are too.

For one, consoles are pretty much headache free. You can just put the game in, sit down, and enjoy. On a PC a million things can go wrong to interfere with your enjoyment.

Second, you get to sit on your nice couch and look at your big screen. Always a plus.

I'm pretty much of the opinion that all of the consoles have great games on them, and are worth purchasing by this point. It just depends if you think your willing to lay down the cash or not. I only own an Xbox 360, though I'm sure that if I bought a PS3 or Wii, I wouldn't really be regretting my purchase.

And you can always turn the swearing off in Brutal Legend. Though if your mother both doesn't like metal and controls what you purchase... yeah it might be a hard sell. :smalltongue:

[Driderman]

I'd recommend the 360 for the social gaming and the handful of interesting exclusives it gets.
I wouldn't recommend the PS3 unless you're much into shooters, driving games, sports games or japanese RPGs.

You sound like a PC person. Most the games the 360 has can be had on PC as well. Maybe you should get your own computer instead?

[Darth Mario]

For one, consoles are pretty much headache free. You can just put the game in, sit down, and enjoy. On a PC a million things can go wrong to interfere with your enjoyment.

I have but one thing to reply to this with.

Red. Ring. Of. Death. It's more common than you think.

[warty goblin]

Some people will argue forever and ever that the only game system you ever need is a computer. While computers are fine and all, consoles are too.

That would be me. I have nothing really against consoles per say, but to me there's simply so much more going on in the PC gaming scene. Indie games are still primarily a PC thing, the mod scene is exclusively PC, and so on. Bottom line, on a console you buy a set experience. On a PC, you buy a game, and then to a large extent, the amount you get out of it is the amount you put into it.


For one, consoles are pretty much headache free. You can just put the game in, sit down, and enjoy. On a PC a million things can go wrong to interfere with your enjoyment.
I've been a PC gamer for ten years or so now. During that time, there's been a grand total of perhaps two or three weeks where I've been unable to play games. Sure there are horror stories of complete repeated meltdowns, but this happens to consoles as well.

I'm not denying that PC gaming is more complicated, but in some ways it's also simpler. Pretty much every game ever has a no CD crack available, if you choose to go that route. An increasing portion of my games collection is completely digital, so I don't ever have to worry about discs getting scratched, lost, or some smart ass manufacturer coming out with a new console in five years and being unable to play half of my collection. I still play games I bought ten years ago on the same machine I use to play Crysis, and I didn't have to rebuy them or anything.


Second, you get to sit on your nice couch and look at your big screen. Always a plus.
This assumes one has a couch and a big screen. As a college student living in a miniscule dorm room, the latter is impractical, the former would require me to take out a wall. As it is, I can pack my gaming PC, monitor and games into the trunk of a small car and still have room for my bedding. Also, higher resolutions, and no having to squint at blurry fonts.


I'm pretty much of the opinion that all of the consoles have great games on them, and are worth purchasing by this point. It just depends if you think your willing to lay down the cash or not. I only own an Xbox 360, though I'm sure that if I bought a PS3 or Wii, I wouldn't really be regretting my purchase.
I can see this point. I'm not sure I understand the point of owning both a XBox 360 and a PS3, since neither system has that many exclusives anymore, and I simply don't understand why one would fork over for a Wii with its hideous graphics when one could get a 360 for damn near the same price, but that's just me.


And you can always turn the swearing off in Brutal Legend. Though if your mother both doesn't like metal and controls what you purchase... yeah it might be a hard sell. :smalltongue:
I just snuck all of the games my Mom would have objected to*. It helped that my Mom is very timid about computers, and thus hiding them was fairly simple. A good pair of headphones is also invaluable for this purpose, as well as respectful to ones cohabitants who may not wish to listen to two hours of simulated automatic weapons fire, even if they don't object to it.

*I still don't let her see the boxes of what I buy. If we go to Best Buy or something together, and she asks what I got, I just reply with a vague genre. 'Strategy' is pretty safe, but trying to come up with a one word description of a shooter for the world's least violent person is fairly difficult. 'Action' works OK.

[Oslecamo]

and I simply don't understand why one would fork over for a Wii with its hideous graphics when one could get a 360 for damn near the same price, but that's just me.

1-WII MOTE!
2-Cheaper games.
3-You hardly notice a diference in the graphics on a small TV like many people have.
4-Doesn't crash.
5-Smaller. The XBox 360 looks like something more fit to build a bunker wall.
6-Nintento exclusives like Metroid and SSBB.
7-WII MOTE!

(yes I know you consider the Wii mote unrealistic, but most people out there just love it, and the potentials are endless)

[Erloas]

For one, consoles are pretty much headache free. You can just put the game in, sit down, and enjoy. On a PC a million things can go wrong to interfere with your enjoyment.

Second, you get to sit on your nice couch and look at your big screen. Always a plus.

The first one is really loosing a lot of ground anymore. Sure the hardware doesn't change much (the HD is almost a requirement for the 360 but not all of them have it, and things like Natal and the new PS3 motion controller might change that some too), but its very common to put a game into a 360 or PS3 and have to wait for a while for the game to install then download updates, etc. Sure the issue only comes up at first purchase, but once you have a game running on a PC there isn't any more issues to have. Except of course hardware failure which can happen to every piece of electronics. Even the Wii and PS3 have a failure rate estimated in the 2-5% range.

As for the big screen TV... well you would be hard pressed to find a big screen TV and computer that wouldn't play nice together. In fact my current monitor has a TV tuner in it (though its the higher 1920x1200 rather then 1920x1080 aka 1080p). I've also used PCs on 720p and 1080p TVs. Only thing you need then is a wireless keyboard and mouse... common for a lot of people. Its also really easy to pick up a controller for a PC that is the same as a PS2/3 or 360, just a matter of setting it up for any given game.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Well one thing to keep in mind is that requirements aren't really directly related to how good a game looks. Its an ok guideline, but really you just have to check the specs. For instance, a crappy console port like GTA IV takes a lot of resources and doesn't look all that great for it. Some good looking games have really good engines that run well on a very wide range of systems. If you can run Fallout 3 and Mass Effect pretty well on medium settings there is probably only a very few games that you can't run reasonably on some settings.

It might be more practical to pick up a second cheap computer for the price of a console and use that for facebook/web and emails, etc. and free up the better computer for other things. Depending on the computer literacy of people in your house they might fight over the newer computer even if the old one is better just because the newer one is newer.

What are the specs on your computer now?
I don't know the specs of my family computer off the top of my head, but I do know that my father is a computer GOD. I can ask him what the specs of our computer are. When I described the computer situation at home, I wasn't completely accurate. In actuality we have four computers in the house.

One of them is the "family" computer. It's the most advanced one and it's the one that has the new graphics card. Because it's positioned in the family room and has the best capabilities, it's the one everyone wants to use. I play high-end games on it, my brother and sister use it for e-mail and Facebook, and my mother uses it for e-mail, work related writing and solitaire. I'm expected to defer to the three of them if one of them needs or wants to use the computer while I'm using it, and I'm also expected to wait until whoever else is using the computer to finish using it before I can play. This annoys me, especially when my sister's using the computer, since she spends HOURS on Facebook, but I can't complain, since if I do I'll draw accusations of addiction.

Another computer is placed downstairs and it's an older computer that used to be the family computer. I'm practically the only one who still uses this computer, and that's mainly so I can use the internet without fighting with the others. My brother sometimes uses this one, but usually only when the upstairs computer is occupied. It can run a few games, but most of them are older ones, like the Age of Empires games, the KOTOR games and the like. Finally, this computer is on its last legs, and may be dying soon.

The next computer is my little brother's. It's a small machine that has bare minimum stuff. It used to be my dorm computer, which I had at college during my freshman and sophomore years. It used to be able to run games like Diablo II and Jade Empire, but I began to develop an addiction problem during the summer between my freshman and sophomore years and into my sophomore year that caused a great deal of trouble for my grades and my trust with my family. I myself was glad to get rid of it so I could get my life back on track. My little brother now uses it exclusively, both for his library of 80's hair metal and for looking up funny things on the internet.

The last computer is my dad's. It's in his office and none of us ever go in there anyway.

So there's the computer situation at my house. To the suggestion that I get my own computer, I'm afraid that after my disasterous gaming addiction (For those interested, it was Diablo II, Neverwinter Nights, Neverwinter Nights II, Jade Empire: Special Edition and Titan Quest that I was addicted to. MMOs aren't really my thing.) that will most likely never be an option again. My parents (mostly my mother, since she cares a great deal about my academic and financial security) and I both don't want me to backslide into my old habits and stay up till 3:00 AM playing a game. If we got a new family computer, maybe the other one would get freed up, but I know that my brother and I are probably the only ones who'd go downstairs. My sister explicitly refuses to use the older one. She has a laptop that my Dad got for free and completely fixed up for her, but I have a feeling that given a choice she'll take the family computer.

So, there's my scenario.

[warty goblin]

1-WII MOTE!
2-Cheaper games.
3-You hardly notice a diference in the graphics on a small TV like many people have.
4-Doesn't crash.
5-Smaller. The XBox 360 looks like something more fit to build a bunker wall.
6-Nintento exclusives like Metroid and SSBB.
7-WII MOTE!

(yes I know you consider the Wii mote unrealistic, but most people out there just love it, and the potentials are endless)


1: Mouse and keyboard. Because sometimes you have to shoot people from 500 meters, and that extra precision is neccesary. Either that or direct a simultanious, realtime flanking maneuver, where you need both the precision and the hotkeys.

2: The only games I ever pay $50 for are simultanious console releases. For PC excluses, $30-$40 is much more common.

3: I'll take my high resolutions thanks. No offense, but being able to distinguish features at more than twenty feet is nice.

4: Mine doesn't crash either. It also processes word documents, surfs the web, and does symbolic integration.

5: Guilty as charged. Mine is a lumbering beast. But it also glows blue!

6: Why do people care about Mario anyway? As for shooters, the best ones in history are on the PC. 'Nuff said.

7: HD laser mouse with 12 input channels.

[Green-Shirt Q]

6: Why do people care about Mario anyway?

Because he's awesome. Why does anybody care about YOUR favourite game person? Huh? :smallmad:

Anyway, different strokes for different folks. I personally like the Wii a lot more then Xbox, mainly because the Wii has more of the kind of games I like. I can't think of too many games for the Xbox 360 I enjoy.

For the graphics and speed and stuff, I hardly really notice and don't give a crap anyways. It's pretty easy to ignore, suspend your disbelief, and enjoy. Although sometimes Wii games can be pretty *%^$#ing ugly it's hard to enjoy. Not too many games are like that, though.

[warty goblin]

Because he's awesome. Why does anybody care about YOUR favourite game person? Huh? :smallmad:

He's a plumber who stomps on turtles, what's awesome about that? I've got nothing against plumbers, but am rather fond of turtles.


For the graphics and speed and stuff, I hardly really notice and don't give a crap anyways. It's pretty easy to ignore, suspend your disbelief, and enjoy. Although sometimes Wii games can be pretty *%^$#ing ugly it's hard to enjoy. Not too many games are like that, though.
Yes and no. There are things that are possible with better graphics that simply aren't with worse. Being able to run very high resolutions for example allows one to pick out patterns farther away, and thus allows for longer combat ranges. This makes for a simply different game experience, and one that is really not as possible with low resolutions. Whether that's your thing is entirely up to you of course, but graphics can be more than just eye candy.

And the things you can do with physics do have lots of real gameplay consequences, I don't think there's anybody who denies that. Physics take a lot of processor power.

[Inhuman Bot]

He's a plumber who stomps on turtles, what's awesome about that? I've got nothing against plumbers, but am rather fond of turtles.

Some people like platformers, and Mario is probably the best platformer there is.

Besides, he stomps on Mushrooms more.

[Oslecamo]

He's a plumber who stomps on turtles, what's awesome about that? I've got nothing against plumbers, but am rather fond of turtles.
From someone who loves wargames so much, are you saying you have trouble with some demonic turtles being killed, but no problem with slaughtering hundreds of your own kin?:smalltongue:



Yes and no. There are things that are possible with better graphics that simply aren't with worse. Being able to run very high resolutions for example allows one to pick out patterns farther away, and thus allows for longer combat ranges. This makes for a simply different game experience, and one that is really not as possible with low resolutions. Whether that's your thing is entirely up to you of course, but graphics can be more than just eye candy.

Except that the Wii has more than good enough graphics to allow that. If something is too far away for the max resolution to show him, chances are that the enemy would need to be out of the map world for it to happen, or that the curvature of the planet iself would hide it.




And the things you can do with physics do have lots of real gameplay consequences, I don't think there's anybody who denies that. Physics take a lot of processor power.
Wich, luckily, are not directly related to graphics. Like Wii sports shows, the nintendo console can replicate complex physic systems just fine, and that was just a free demo. Don't understimate the Wii's processor.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Any candor about the PC situation and whether or not it has any bearing on my decision whether or not to get an Xbox 360?

[warty goblin]

From someone who loves wargames so much, are you saying you have trouble with some demonic turtles being killed, but no problem with slaughtering hundreds of your own kin?:smalltongue:

Humans can be right bastards, and in wargames tend to be making concentrated efforts on my life and limb. Turtles however, besides being something akin to perfection in form and function, tend to be fairly innocous.


Except that the Wii has more than good enough graphics to allow that. If something is too far away for the max resolution to show him, chances are that the enemy would need to be out of the map world for it to happen, or that the curvature of the planet iself would hide it.

The difficulty with resolution isn't that at distance things get too small to see, it's that, given the limited number of pixels, any attempt to resolve them will make them appear too big. The math behind this is pretty simple:

Consider rendering a one meter wide pillar of arbitrary height, in say, 480p (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/480p), a resolution of which the Wii is capable, from a first person viewpoint. Assume the field of vision (from left to right) is 40 degrees, and the screen is parallel to the surface, with the center facing the midline of the pillar.

At a distance of 10 meters, some simple trigonometry* reveals that the pillar will occupy 5.72 degrees of arc, from an (assumed) total of forty from the left to the right of the screen.

In order to figure out the pixel width, one need simply solve the porportion
5.27/40 = X/(number of horizontal pixels = 852 in 16:9, 480p widescreen).
Crunching the numbers gives X = 121 pixels, or just over an eighth of the screen's horizontal width.

At 300 meters the pillar will occupy 4 pixels in width. A human is perhaps half a meter wide on average, so at this distance a person, drawn to scale would be about 2 pixels wide. Line of sight in fairly open and reasonably flat terrain is well in excess of 300 meters. At a kilometer, a person is a total of 1 pixel wide, which means except for color they have exactly no detail. At two kilometers they are no longer visible at all.

Now suppose one is playing an FPS, and trying to shoot a 300 meter distant human sized target. At this distance each pixel is about a quarter meter wide, which means that even with a perfectly accurate weapon, the game cannot tell where in a half meter diameter circle you are actually aiming. Actual weapon accuracy at 300 meters is, for most firearms, much, much better than this. Essentially your only option is autoaim, and lots of it.

This has been your proof of how graphics effect gameplay.

*Draw a 40 degree angle with vertex A, bisect it, then, ten meters from the vertex draw a perpendicular line through the bisecter. Mark off half meter line segments on either side of the bisector along this perpendicular. Draw lines from the ends of these segments to A. Let theta be one of the resulting angles inscribed inside the original 40 degree angle. Then tan(theta) = .5/10, theta = arctan(.5/10) ~ 2.86. Double this to account for the angle on the other side of the bisector to obtain the length of arc marked off by the one meter pillar.



Wich, luckily, are not directly related to graphics. Like Wii sports shows, the nintendo console can replicate complex physic systems just fine, and that was just a free demo. Don't understimate the Wii's processor.
Processor power is finite. Physics take processor power, as do graphics . The more you have, the more you can-theoretically- do. Optimization is important, but in the end the three are playing a zero sum game. Every CPU cycle spent animating Miis is a CPU cycle not spent calculating rigid body colisions.

[Green-Shirt Q]

Humans can be right bastards, and in wargames tend to be making concentrated efforts on my life and limb. Turtles however, besides being something akin to perfection in form and function, tend to be fairly innocous.

Not Koopas. They kidnapp Princesses and try to take over the world. Therefore, it's okay to kill them. :smalltongue:

Besides, I definetely wouldn't call a koopa "perfection" in any use of the word.

Also, you can't really "kill" a koopa. They just go inside their shells for a little while.


Every CPU cycle spent animating Miis is a CPU cycle not spent calculating rigid body colisions.

I don't claim to understand anything else you said, all I know is that Miis aren't any every, or indeed most, Wii games. You really don't need to worry about that in an FPS, I would guess.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

This isn't about the Wii! I've already got one of those. Granted we haven't used it in a year or two because all we play on it are Wii Sports and Twilight Princess, but I'm not interested in Wii games right now. Besides, the console doesn't have ANY western-style RPGs out for it last time I checked.

Should I buy an Xbox 360 or not?

[warty goblin]

Not Koopas. They kidnapp Princesses and try to take over the world. Therefore, it's okay to kill them. :smalltongue:

Besides, I definetely wouldn't call a koopa "perfection" in any use of the word.

Also, you can't really "kill" a koopa. They just go inside their shells for a little while.

Turtles are a nearly perfect form in that they have not needed significant structural changes in a very, very long time.




I don't claim to understand anything else you said, all I know is that Miis aren't any every, or indeed most, Wii games. You really don't need to worry about that in an FPS, I would guess.
I used Miis as an example. It really doesn't matter though, whatever effort you spend on graphics is effort not spent on physics. Since processor power is finite, this means that one comes at the expense of the other, or something else like AI.

It also means that a more powerful processor can do more of both.


This isn't about the Wii! I've already got one of those. Granted we haven't used it in a year or two because all we play on it are Wii Sports and Twilight Princess, but I'm not interested in Wii games right now. Besides, the console doesn't have ANY western-style RPGs out for it last time I checked.

Should I buy an Xbox 360 or not?

Go for the computer. There's a lot of good western RPGs on the PC, and even if they are released on the 360, their mods aren't. Any good western RPG is crazy modable, and missing out on that kind of value strikes me as unsmart. If you're really worried about not being able to run some of the more recent or upcoming RPGs, spend the money on upgrades. With a bit of research, ingenuity and patience, you can accomplish a lot on not much money.

[Green-Shirt Q]

Should I buy an Xbox 360 or not?

It all comes down to personal taste.

If you like smart people games more, go for the new computer.

If you like games in which you blow off the heads of nazis or aliens more, go for the 360.

I'm sure I'm generalizing a lot here, but that's what I believe.

[Erloas]

Should I buy an Xbox 360 or not?

It sounds like you want a PC but just want to settle for a 360 because you think you can get your parents to get one for you.

First you might just talk to your sister and parents about fair time usage. It is kind of rediculous if your sister has her own laptop and still spends all of her time on another computer especially given what she is doing with the system.

In terms of getting addicted to games, how is that system dependant? You won't get another PC because you spend too much time playing games... how does having a console make it so you are going to spend less time playing? Maybe if it doesn't have games you like as much, but thats kind of a backwards way of going about the problem and choice of systems.

Also as far as how much use you will get out of the system, what sort of conflicts are you going to have over a TV to play the 360? That is usually another electronic device that has people arguing over who gets to use it.


On the Nintendo side of things
I'm not sure why so many people seem to like Mario so much. I can see how the games could be fun (I personally don't really care for any of them and never did even from the days of the original Mario), but Mario as a character has... well no character at all. He is one of the most characterless characters I've come across. Even the characatures and pariodies of Mario don't end up with any character.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

It sounds like you want a PC but just want to settle for a 360 because you think you can get your parents to get one for you.
Come again? :smallconfused:

First you might just talk to your sister and parents about fair time usage. It is kind of rediculous if your sister has her own laptop and still spends all of her time on another computer especially given what she is doing with the system.
Perhaps this needs more clarification. The arguments about computer time happened during the summer, when I had a strict limit on my computer use. I had to take an hour long walk for two hours of computer time, at which point I needed to take another walk to get another two hours. All-in-all a fair system, but again, I'd end up arguing with my sister when I wanted to play a game on the upstairs computer. She didn't get the laptop until she started school last month. I don't know how things would work if she brought it home, since the few times we've been home at the same time she's used the upstairs computer simply because she didn't bring her laptop home. Furthermore, in conversations with my mother about it, she's stated that she thinks my sister should have the same time limits I do, though she has yet to implement this (mostly because my sister and I are at college right now, and thus not under her direct scrutiny). My hands are tied when my mother needs the computer though, since she uses it for actual work. My brother is flexible about computer use, and simply uses whichever one's available so no real complaints there, and my little brother's got his own computer now (though my mother's also considering the one-walk-per-two-hours limit with him too since he spends so much time on his).

In terms of getting addicted to games, how is that system dependant? You won't get another PC because you spend too much time playing games... how does having a console make it so you are going to spend less time playing? Maybe if it doesn't have games you like as much, but thats kind of a backwards way of going about the problem and choice of systems.
Well, the biggest one will be that the console will be at home. Given that I'm at college and I'm never home for more than a few days at this point, it won't be any sort of distraction. When I AM home, the time limit will apply, so I won't have an addiction problem. It's mostly my mother wanting to make sure it doesn't happen again. She's iffy about me buying entertainment stuff because she doesn't want me to play games or read D&D books when I should be writing papers and reading textbooks. At least until after I graduate this year, and then I hopefully begin grad school.

Also as far as how much use you will get out of the system, what sort of conflicts are you going to have over a TV to play the 360? That is usually another electronic device that has people arguing over who gets to use it.
My little brother has his own little TV that he uses for all the Nintendo consoles we own (of which there are a lot). We have a lot of DVD's but we don't watch them THAT often, and when we do we usually make an evening of it, so I'll refrain from gaming if we watch something anyway. My parents always watch the news at 10, but they have their own TV in their bedroom. There's also a TV in my "bedroom" that we used to use to watch movies and play Nintendo games on, but we haven't used it since we divided our basement in half to create my room. Provided they haven't gotten rid of it yet, I suppose I could make use of it as a gaming TV, and thus I could also game privately.

[Green-Shirt Q]

On the Nintendo side of things
I'm not sure why so many people seem to like Mario so much. I can see how the games could be fun (I personally don't really care for any of them and never did even from the days of the original Mario), but Mario as a character has... well no character at all. He is one of the most characterless characters I've come across. Even the characatures and pariodies of Mario don't end up with any character.

Well, Mario definetely dosen't have much of a character behind him. The company deliberately kept him a flat character for some reason. He is the everyman. Come to think of it, not a lot of Mario characters have a personality either. Except in RPGs. Then the characters have some individual character, usually.

My guess is that we Mario fans like Mario because the games that he is in are, 99 out of 100 times, really really good. Even the okay games he is in are pretty fun. Or, at least they are to people who like those types of games.

Plus, Mario is a pretty charming character. He might not have a personality, but his art style is cute. I guess the reason we like Mario is almost the same reason we like Pikachu.

[Zevox]

Mario tangent:

My guess is that we Mario fans like Mario because the games that he is in are, 99 out of 100 times, really really good. Even the okay games he is in are pretty fun. Or, at least they are to people who like those types of games.
Pretty much. Mario is all about the gameplay - his games are just very well designed and very fun to play. The story mostly exists to allow the gameplay to happen (except in some of the RPGs), and even when the characters are given something like a personality, it's usually pretty one-dimensional anyway, mostly just there to amuse you (see Luigi and Bowser in the recent game Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story). It's the gameplay that makes his series the long-running blockbuster it is, plain and simple.
Zevox

[Erloas]

Well, the biggest one will be that the console will be at home. Given that I'm at college and I'm never home for more than a few days at this point, it won't be any sort of distraction. When I AM home, the time limit will apply, so I won't have an addiction problem. It's mostly my mother wanting to make sure it doesn't happen again. She's iffy about me buying entertainment stuff because she doesn't want me to play games or read D&D books when I should be writing papers and reading textbooks. At least until after I graduate this year, and then I hopefully begin grad school.
Well if that is the case then the 360 hardly seems worth it. The 360 isn't really expensive, but its a fair amount for a college student. You aren't going to get a huge amount of use out of the system being gone all the time.

I would find something you could get more use out of to spend that money on. So something you can take with you to college and not spend too much time on.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Well if that is the case then the 360 hardly seems worth it. The 360 isn't really expensive, but its a fair amount for a college student. You aren't going to get a huge amount of use out of the system being gone all the time.

I would find something you could get more use out of to spend that money on. So something you can take with you to college and not spend too much time on.

Not gonna happen. The whole reason I'm considering the 360 is because I can leave it at home and not have to worry about it. And besides, I will be home at least every two weeks. Plus, if I get it for Christmas, I'll have Winter Break to play it before I go back to school, which'll be a whole month.

[Yora]

My best advice would be to first write out a list of 10-12 definitely must-have/will-buy games that you will get on the 360, preferably at least 4-5 that will never hit PC. It helps to make sure you'll actually get good use out of it.
I got a used 360, played 4 games, and sold it again after less than 2 months. Giving some thoughts on what you want to play is definately a good idea.
Maybe not what Zousha is looking for, but I can highly recommend PS2. Very cheap, very small, and LOTS of very good games, you can get for 6€ at ebay or gamestop.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Yeah, but the PS2 doesn't have the games I'm looking for. I don't recall any western-style RPGs for the system, which seems to be something the Xbox 360 has in spades.

[Erloas]

It sounds like you had pretty much already made your decision to get a 360 before you even made the thread, and that all you were really doing is trying to get people to agree with you.
So get it and be done with it.

[Triaxx]

It's not that the Wii doesn't crash, it's that it doesn't crash as often. Mine is down now because the Disc Drive trashed itself.

And if you're shooting at something that far away, chances are you have a scope to hit it with. Yes, a mouse is super precise, but the Wii-mote is still a step up from the control stick. Besides, a free-floating targetting cursor that lets you take aim at several targets at once without loosing any of them is always a good thing. Something most PC games haven't learned.

On-topic: Get the 360. It's not as nice as a PC, and cheaper than the PS3, but you get what you pay for.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

It sounds like you had pretty much already made your decision to get a 360 before you even made the thread, and that all you were really doing is trying to get people to agree with you.
So get it and be done with it.

Kind of. I was looking to see whether it was good or a bad idea, considering my history with games, addiction and my relationship with my parents (the keepers of the pursestrings). Plus, I've heard all sorts of rumors about the 360 having a bad case of the gremlins, what with that whole Red Ring of Death thing and that the console scratches game discs while playing them.

I'm going to propose the idea on Saturday, when I'll be at home.

[warty goblin]

It's not that the Wii doesn't crash, it's that it doesn't crash as often. Mine is down now because the Disc Drive trashed itself.
My PC did that. I went out and downloaded no-CD patches, and kept right on playing away.


And if you're shooting at something that far away, chances are you have a scope to hit it with.
300 meters isn't that far of a shot with a rifle, and even most assault rifles are effective to that range, which means not only are the rounds powerful to be lethal, but are still accurate. Until the last decade, or maybe two pretty much the only scoped weapons were sniper rifles, yet plenty of infantry combat happens at those ranges.

Even in most shooters I play, I find I spend an aweful lot of time shooting at targets at least a hundred meters distant


Yes, a mouse is super precise, but the Wii-mote is still a step up from the control stick. Besides, a free-floating targetting cursor that lets you take aim at several targets at once without loosing any of them is always a good thing. Something most PC games haven't learned.
By this I assume you mean the ability to shift targets without changing your view, since I can't really see how you could 'aim at multiple targets at once' short of some sort of target lock autofire malarky.

Don't you have to drag your reticule to the edge of the screen to turn though? Because that would drive me absolutely nuts in about thirty minutes flat. I'm rather fond of being able to keep myself facing the way I want to be facing without swinging my gun all over the place. I also don't think it's that terribly unrealistic, guns are heavy and you want to be looking down their sights anyways. Now if more games adopted Red Orchastra's 'freelook down the sights' idea I'd be a happy man, but the system works really very, very well.

Do PC shooters often suffer from the 'gun bolted to center of the screen' syndrome? Absolutely, but I'll gladly put up with that for the precision and resolution neccessary to fight it out over long range in games, particularly if the game accounts for bullet drop and flight time.

[Optimystik]

Kind of. I was looking to see whether it was good or a bad idea, considering my history with games, addiction and my relationship with my parents (the keepers of the pursestrings). Plus, I've heard all sorts of rumors about the 360 having a bad case of the gremlins, what with that whole Red Ring of Death thing and that the console scratches game discs while playing them.

The newer models (particularly Elites and Arcades) are a lot less likely to RRoD from what I've heard. And when it did happen to a friend of mine (on an older system, not either of the above) he got it replaced pretty easily.

The scratch thing has happened to me twice, and all I have to say there is make sure your console doesn't move during play. Both times it was because I had it in a standing position, and first a dog and then my cousin rocking the unit resulted in misfortune.

I don't know what you mean by "gremlins."

To keep my post from being all doom and gloom, I'll mention that I thoroughly enjoy my 360, for all the reasons in your opening post and more.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I don't know what you mean by "gremlins."


Before they became pop-culture icons in that famous movie, gremlins were sort of an in-joke with the RAF. The story goes that inside all the planes were little men called gremlins whose sole purpose in life was to make the machinery fail. The RAF used the story to handwave unexplainable engine trouble. The story carried into other machinery besides airplanes, so when something breaks down, whether it be a console or a car engine, and you can't explain it, it must've been the gremlins.

[Triaxx]

True, but I don't have to install every game on the Wii and hope that the specs are up to date, and that I don't have to spend hours diagnosing a problem caused by an anti-virus or hunting down an obscure unofficial driver to correct a graphical incompatibility.

True, but we're talking about video games. There's a big difference between trying to hit pixels and drop a bullet through someone's chest in conditions where windage, angle and range are far bigger factors. Most games simply don't have the draw distance, even on the PC to represent those targets without a scope.

No, I mean that with a semi-auto weapon you can shoot one round at each of a few targets approaching, without having to completely turn to shoot at each one, because the gun does not have to aim straight ahead only. Just turning the hands to shoot requires much less time and effort than totally repositioning my body each time I switch targets.

Yes, some games require you to move the reticule to the edge of the screen. That's just a symptom of bad design. MP:3 gave the option to either do it that way, or have the movement linked to the cursor, so that like a PC game, if the cursor moved, so did the screen, but fairly slowly, speeding up the closer you got to the edge. Like an actual gun, if you're leading, you don't move your aim to a spot ahead, stop there and then shoot. You keep turning until you fire.

[warty goblin]

True, but I don't have to install every game on the Wii and hope that the specs are up to date, and that I don't have to spend hours diagnosing a problem caused by an anti-virus or hunting down an obscure unofficial driver to correct a graphical incompatibility.

Nope, if your game is a bugfilled mess, you're simply screwed. Granted, the likelihood of it being so is much less, but your recourse is much more limited. I've also never figured out people's complaints about installing games. It takes twenty minutes, tops, can mostly take care of itself after the first two minutes, and the next time I gotta futz with it is to back up my save games.

I'll take a 20 minute install anyday for the ability to download games directly, without having to suffer through the misery that is a videogame store. I'll even happily sign up for the 2 day downloads.


True, but we're talking about video games. There's a big difference between trying to hit pixels and drop a bullet through someone's chest in conditions where windage, angle and range are far bigger factors. Most games simply don't have the draw distance, even on the PC to represent those targets without a scope.
Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising has a 35 kilometer draw distance. I don't know the figure for Arma II off the top of my head, but it's similar. I'd bet that most flight sims have a draw distance approaching that high as well. About the only thing that keeps lots games from doing this is the genre's overdependance on CoD style linear corridors.



No, I mean that with a semi-auto weapon you can shoot one round at each of a few targets approaching, without having to completely turn to shoot at each one, because the gun does not have to aim straight ahead only. Just turning the hands to shoot requires much less time and effort than totally repositioning my body each time I switch targets.
This is actually a very easy thing to simulate with a mouse, and quite a few games do it by simply not rotating your body until you've moved the mouse so many degrees to the left or right.


Yes, some games require you to move the reticule to the edge of the screen. That's just a symptom of bad design. MP:3 gave the option to either do it that way, or have the movement linked to the cursor, so that like a PC game, if the cursor moved, so did the screen, but fairly slowly, speeding up the closer you got to the edge. Like an actual gun, if you're leading, you don't move your aim to a spot ahead, stop there and then shoot. You keep turning until you fire.
So it's bad design to force you to move the curser to the edge of the screen, but good design to allow you to let you use basically the PC system, except that you obviously object to that design? Can I be confused now?

[Indon]

As Silent suggested, have a list of non-PC games you want first, to justify the cost.

The XBox 360 has a good number of them. Mine include various Dynasty Warriors games (including one of the DW: Gundam games), Eternal Sonata, and one of the Katamari games.


and I simply don't understand why one would fork over for a Wii with its hideous graphics when one could get a 360 for damn near the same price, but that's just me.
The Wii's a much better party system, thanks to its' game library and innovative control schema.

The 360 and PS3 stand in that awkward place where non-gamers often won't have as much fun playing the games, but hardcore gamers could just set up a LAN party instead.


He's a plumber who stomps on turtles, what's awesome about that?
Like Batman, he can breathe in space. That's pretty awesome.


Processor power is finite. Physics take processor power, as do graphics . The more you have, the more you can-theoretically- do. Optimization is important, but in the end the three are playing a zero sum game. Every CPU cycle spent animating Miis is a CPU cycle not spent calculating rigid body colisions.

Modern computers and consoles alike have independent, specialized graphics processors.

[Triaxx]

The recourse is simple enough. Exchange the copy and if it's still bad, get a different game, the same as I'd do on the PC. Besides, even on the PC, sometimes new drivers arrive between the gold disc and launch day that cause problems with an unpatched version of the game.

I don't mind installing. If I had the option on the consoles, I'd do it without reservation. Hard Drives are faster by nature than CD's and Flash Memory is faster still.

Fine, but there's a problem. 35km sounds impressive, but the reason for those 300m average engagement distances? That's the range at which you can reliably hit a target without Optics. Closer in your chances to hit the target go up, but so do the opponent's chances to hit you. And for those snipers with Optics capable of seeing that far, 1km is about the best that can be managed and then only if the windage and MoA is correct, otherwise you end up with a miss. Meaning that if you're shooting at a human sized target 34km of your distance is worthless. Does the game feature such high resolution that you can make out a moving human target at 1km?

Flight sims have a couple of important differences. First, a fighter aircraft is significantly bigger than a human with a rifle. Second, planes engage at much higher speeds and so require more reaction times, not for the pilots, but for the planes. Third, they fly up where the engine doesn't have to devote a billion pixels to ground clutter.

Hang on. You need to decide which one of these you're going to berate me over before I answer to this one.

@Indon: Plus those graphics processors also share some of the physics burden with the CPU.

[warty goblin]

The recourse is simple enough. Exchange the copy and if it's still bad, get a different game, the same as I'd do on the PC. Besides, even on the PC, sometimes new drivers arrive between the gold disc and launch day that cause problems with an unpatched version of the game.

Indeed, I just prefer to have the patches available. Plus it leads to things such as Stardock's development doctrine, which is simply completely incompatible with the way consoles currently work.


I don't mind installing. If I had the option on the consoles, I'd do it without reservation. Hard Drives are faster by nature than CD's and Flash Memory is faster still.
Quite true. My only objection to installs is those that come on seven CDs since I have to keep playing disc swap hockey with them *Glares at NWN 2*


Fine, but there's a problem. 35km sounds impressive, but the reason for those 300m average engagement distances? That's the range at which you can reliably hit a target without Optics. Closer in your chances to hit the target go up, but so do the opponent's chances to hit you. And for those snipers with Optics capable of seeing that far, 1km is about the best that can be managed and then only if the windage and MoA is correct, otherwise you end up with a miss. Meaning that if you're shooting at a human sized target 34km of your distance is worthless. Does the game feature such high resolution that you can make out a moving human target at 1km?

At fourteen hundred pixels in horizontal resolution, which is rather low by modern PC standards, a human will be perhaps two or three pixels across at a kilometer, and probably three or four pixels high. So clearly distinguishable as human, probably not. Distinguishable as movement, probably.


And for shooting small arms, yes a lot of that distance is useless, but for spotting targets for artillery or airstrikes, or noting enemy positions, armor and other assets it is useful. It also allows you to plan your movement based on the terrain, to scout positions and maneuvre around enemy strongpoints for better angles of attack. Plus it looks freaking awesome to be able to see that far, and if nothing else it's the complete negation of the invisible wall school of level design. That's something I think we all can get behind.


Flight sims have a couple of important differences. First, a fighter aircraft is significantly bigger than a human with a rifle. Second, planes engage at much higher speeds and so require more reaction times, not for the pilots, but for the planes. Third, they fly up where the engine doesn't have to devote a billion pixels to ground clutter.
All quite right, but still another important application of long draw distances.


Hang on. You need to decide which one of these you're going to berate me over before I answer to this one. I'm not meaning to berate. It just strikes me that you are simultaneously maintaining two positions that are more or less mutually exclusive of the other.


@Indon: Plus those graphics processors also share some of the physics burden with the CPU.
OK, to do this right, CPU resources, GPU resources are finite, therefore the sum of their power is finite.

[Triaxx]

It's incompatible now, but up til just a couple of years ago, Consoles have been incapable of downloading anything at all.

NWN2? That's not bad. Try playing Baldur's Gate in it's seven disc format, with a 12x CD drive on a Pre-Pentium computer. *shudder*

Ah. It's still the kind of range you'll want a scope to hit though.

I'm completely with you on that one. Of course it doesn't mean much when the developers still manage to hide the enourmous targets behind buildings or small mountains. Being able to make out sentries from beyond the range they see me is always good though.

Sorry. What I'm getting at is that you promote what I'm trying to say with one comment, then complain about what I'm trying to say with the other. I like being able to move the cursor within a small sphere of influence before the screen starts to move. But I want the screen fixed to the cursor if I'm using a scope of some kind. What I'm talking about is the very fine balance between being able to aim anywhere on the screen, but having to go to the edges to swing the perspective, and having the perspective fixed to the cursor.

What I'm getting at is the ability to switch between locked crosshairs, and free moving cross hairs, without having to drop into three or four options screens to do so. MP:3 let you do that just by pressing Z. It would lock focus on an enemy if one was under the cross hairs, but other wise just locked the perspective so you could plink at several screen targets at once without loosing any of them from the screen. If it did lock on to an enemy, only the screen was locked and you could free aim, even if one appeared over the enemies shoulder. You could blast that one, then go back to shooting the locked on enemy without loosing any focus at all.

[warty goblin]

It's incompatible now, but up til just a couple of years ago, Consoles have been incapable of downloading anything at all.
[QUOTE]
Consoles have made great strides in terms of downloadability. But it is still rigorously controlled by the console manufacturer, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Most console games are lucky to get what, one or maybe two patches? I can't think of any console title off the top of my head to recieve three. I honestly have no idea how many updates I've downloaded for Galactic Civlizations II and Sins of a Solar Empire since they came out, and both are really quite different- indeed better- games than they were on release because of this. Hell, Microsoft's policies on downloadable content have more or less killed Team Fortress 2 on the 360 compared to the PC.
[QUOTE]
NWN2? That's not bad. Try playing Baldur's Gate in it's seven disc format, with a 12x CD drive on a Pre-Pentium computer. *shudder*
So much pain...


Ah. It's still the kind of range you'll want a scope to hit though.
Indeed, one obviously wants a scope. One may not have one however.


I'm completely with you on that one. Of course it doesn't mean much when the developers still manage to hide the enourmous targets behind buildings or small mountains. Being able to make out sentries from beyond the range they see me is always good though.Yeah, bad level design is something of a universal. On the other hand, more powerful technology at least allows for better level design, although whether developers have the brains to take advantage of it is a different question.


Sorry. What I'm getting at is that you promote what I'm trying to say with one comment, then complain about what I'm trying to say with the other. I like being able to move the cursor within a small sphere of influence before the screen starts to move. But I want the screen fixed to the cursor if I'm using a scope of some kind. What I'm talking about is the very fine balance between being able to aim anywhere on the screen, but having to go to the edges to swing the perspective, and having the perspective fixed to the cursor.
Ah, I see what you mean now. Something like seen in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd48uCNzVac&feature=related)? (apologies for the gawdaweful soundtrack), wherein you have freelook until you are aiming?



What I'm getting at is the ability to switch between locked crosshairs, and free moving cross hairs, without having to drop into three or four options screens to do so. MP:3 let you do that just by pressing Z. It would lock focus on an enemy if one was under the cross hairs, but other wise just locked the perspective so you could plink at several screen targets at once without loosing any of them from the screen. If it did lock on to an enemy, only the screen was locked and you could free aim, even if one appeared over the enemies shoulder. You could blast that one, then go back to shooting the locked on enemy without loosing any focus at all.
Interesting. I'm generally a bit skeptical of lock on in my FPSs (missile systems aside obviously) but I could see that working.

[Optimystik]

The 360 and PS3 stand in that awkward place where non-gamers often won't have as much fun playing the games, but hardcore gamers could just set up a LAN party instead.

Note that X360 won't be in that position much longer; when Project Natal drops it will make the console appeal to hardcore and casual gamers alike. So you could be setting up to have the best of both worlds in one system.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I'm assembling a game wishlist for when or if I get an Xbox 360.

Dragon Age: Origins
Mass Effect 2
Mass Effect (I'm planning on trading in my PC version of it and getting a 360 version instead, so I can get the DLC without worrying about it ruining the game and so that I can get the full experience of Mass Effect 2, which I'm told will read the information off of your saved Mass Effect games)
Brütal Legend (This one may be tricky. I generally run my purchase ideas by my parents so I can buy with an informed opinion. This game, however, contains foul language, which no one in my household likes, and represents heavy metal, a genre of music that only one other member of my family likes. I'm not sure how I'll be able to justify this one.)
Soul Calibur IV (I've played this game before at a friend's house, and I'd love to be able to practice with it so I can actually win at it without relying on button-mashing.)
Batman: Arkham Asylum (The critics are raving about this one. This one will likely be more easy to get past my parents, since despite the Mature label and scary tone, it's Batman, and Batman doesn't kill or cuss.)
Fable II (I don't care about Molyneux's bad reptuation or how weak the games are when compared with BioWare or Bethesda. I've played the original Fable multiple times and have always enjoyed it.)


There are some games that I won't be purchasing because I already have them for the PC and they work fine on it. Those are: BioShock, Fallout 3 and Oblivion and its expansions.

Are there any other ones out there that might suit me? Before anyone suggests, I will not be purchasing any of the Halo or Gears of War games. Halo doesn't really do anything for me, and I'm not much of a co-op player in any case, and Gears of War is basically Halo with more blood and more cursing.

My parents aren't likely to be very controlling of my purchases, since I've bought Mature rated games before and they haven't batted an eyelash, but since this is a console, and thus will be more conspicuous than playing a game on the computer, I want to make sure that they won't object to such purchases before hand. My father likely won't care what I buy, but my mother might be leery of Mature-rated games, since she doesn't want me or my younger brother (both of us are autistic) to repeat any foul language, or be inspired to make bad decisions (most likely sexual decisions) based on the content of the games.

[warty goblin]

I doubt very much you will be able to trade your PC copy of Mass Effect in, since that usually isn't how it goes with PC games, and ME has limited activations anyways. YMMV, but I'd be surprised.

Also, I've never heard of the DLC breaking anybody's game. I suppose it's possible, but it's slipped under my radar. Also, if you can run Bioshock and Fallout 3 just fine, you'll have no problems with Dragon Age, and the interface is almost certain to be better on the PC.

[Yora]

Note that X360 won't be in that position much longer; when Project Natal drops it will make the console appeal to hardcore and casual gamers alike. So you could be setting up to have the best of both worlds in one system.
I don't think motion control or how it's called doesn't make a console attractive to casual gamers. Wii sells so well because it's very cheap, has lots of casual and kids games, and has a shiny white case. "Family games" just is not what you'd associate with Xbox, motion control or not.

[Optimystik]

I don't think motion control or how it's called doesn't make a console attractive to casual gamers. Wii sells so well because it's very cheap, has lots of casual and kids games, and has a shiny white case. "Family games" just is not what you'd associate with Xbox, motion control or not.

As none of those games has actually come out yet, you may yet be proven wrong. Even without Natal, there's always Netflix to get it into the family living room, however.

[Myatar_Panwar]

I would bet ALOT of money that the reason the Wii sold/is selling so well is because initially people who don't pay attention to video games were like WOW THIS IS THE FUTURE. AWESOME.

Also Wii sports.

[Green-Shirt Q]

Like Batman, he can breathe in space. That's pretty awesome.

Mario can only breathe in space depending on the game. In Super Mario Galaxy and Paper Mario: Thousand Year Door he can, but is unable to in Super Paper Mario.

...Not that that changes anything or adds anything to the discussion.

[Cleverdan22]

Yes, definitely get the 360. I had my doubts at first, but I bought it about a year back, and its an amazingly well rounded system that I have enjoyed immensely. Also, the noise? Won't prevent anyone from falling asleep. Possibility of waking someone up, though.

[Triaxx]

@WartyGoblin:

Consoles have made great strides in terms of downloadability. But it is still rigorously controlled by the console manufacturer, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Most console games are lucky to get what, one or maybe two patches? I can't think of any console title off the top of my head to recieve three. I honestly have no idea how many updates I've downloaded for Galactic Civlizations II and Sins of a Solar Empire since they came out, and both are really quite different- indeed better- games than they were on release because of this. Hell, Microsoft's policies on downloadable content have more or less killed Team Fortress 2 on the 360 compared to the PC.

Similarly with Oblivion. The mods on the PC make it far more replayable than the 360.


Indeed, one obviously wants a scope. One may not have one however.

And if you don't have a scope the easy solution is just to close the distance.


Yeah, bad level design is something of a universal. On the other hand, more powerful technology at least allows for better level design, although whether developers have the brains to take advantage of it is a different question.

Indeed.


Ah, I see what you mean now. Something like seen in this video? (apologies for the gawdaweful soundtrack), wherein you have freelook until you are aiming?

Not quite, but watch how the crosshair's move slightly before the screen turns. There's a small area that you can correct your aim without the screen jumping position. That lets you shoot at two guys moving in a line if one suddenly changes position without throwing off your aim on the second at the same time. Though freelook is awesome to have.


Interesting. I'm generally a bit skeptical of lock on in my FPSs (missile systems aside obviously) but I could see that working.

Ever played Mechwarrior? And had to circle around an opponent to keep his heavy weapons off? At this point not getting hit relies on two things. Keeping track of him visually and guessing which way he's going to move so you can dodge his shots. Now add in constantly correcting the screen to shoot at him and estimating lead time on the fly.

Now take out the visual tracking element, and the correction to shoot, by locking in on him and giving a cursor that can move to any part of the screen to create lead time. You're still thinking of the lead and dodging shots manually, but it takes two of the big problems out of the equation.

If you hit, it's still your skill. If you miss, it's still your fault. If he hits or misses? Your fault or skill. It's just two less things to worry about while trying to enjoy the game.

Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8XQVv86yIM) an MP:3 vid without the Sissy Lock turned on. Watch the cursor free floating for lead.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Well, I've made the proposal to my parents. They gave the predictable "We'll think about it" response, but the expression on their faces indicates to me that the answer will be yes. :smallsmile: