Xbox -- 360 flops

[rumpelstiltzkin]

A lot of people here in the uk play pro evolution soccer and would you believe they made a mess of the 360 version and its totally crap compared to the ps2 or pc version plus it didnt come out on the xbox.        I have also heard the same about other games like splintercell 4 and  Madden i mean so much for the next generation the amount of options left out on the 360 proevo is disgraceful.

[arcade-mad]

Do you have a 360 ??
Ive got the new splinter cell on 360 and i think its better than the other 3 which ive compleated on xbox.
Read the reviews theres loads on the net all are good saying its one of if not the best 360 game out.
As for madden its not my cup of tea but after reading reviews its supposed to be the best madden so far ??
i cant comment on pro evo as not seen much about it as yet but i guess it will be the same gameplay but with better visuals as the other consoles.

I must admit ive had a 360 since day one and think its a bit of a flop but not as a console just as game support
not alot has been released with what i wanna buy but the games i have bought i have been well happy with.
Ive got  fight night 3, pgr 3, tombraider splinter cell need for speed and amped 3.

just my two penneth 

[rumpelstiltzkin]

What i mean is the ps2/xbox/pc  versions of these games are better than the 360 versions as different people worked on the 360 versions and didnt do a good job of them. Im not talking about the old versions of these games but the new ones that appear  on these 4 formats.

[DYNAGOD]

you can consider the xbox 360 a failure on the gamefront in the sense that the 5-6 year old PS2 still outsells the 360 month after month..
the 360 has a fairly enemic selection of games, most of them being either old, ports, or sequels.
the things been out for a good year and they have still failed to deliver a single defining platform title for the 360.
im hoping vegas changes that, but its still really too little too late, especially with the ps3 right around the corner.

[arcade-mad]

The people with a ps2 by far outweighs the people with a 360 though so can the above statement be a true answer to the 360 been a flop ??
i bet the number of ps2 owners outnumber 360 owners a 1000 to 1.

ps2 has been put back to next year so that gives the 360 another christmas to get more support .

just hope more games come out and more games people want to play at that aswell 

regards

[leapinlew]

I can't help but wonder about the heavy price tag these new game systems are bringing to the table. Not only that, game titles are getting more and more expensive. I remember saving up to purchase a $149 Sega Genesis and it being a big purchase. The idea of spending near $600 to outfit myself with a 360 or PS3 seems like way too much to spend on a gaming system. I don't know if everyone that serious about gaming...

I don't play the latest console games because of the amount of time they want you to invest. In fact, I got into retro gaming because I enjoy gaming, I just don't want to commit 100's of hours to a single game. Spending 30 minutes and playing a game of Robotron, Defender and Galaga are more rewarding to me than spending 4 hours with some of the new console games.

I liked the looks of the Nintendo DS because there is a good selection of short quirky games.

Perhaps I'm not alone and there is a backlash of people who want games to be short score based games instead of drawn out, open ended games and they don't want to pay all that money for a gaming system.

[DarkBubble]

They seem to be skimping on the 360 versions of sports titles.  The graphics will be great, but they end up having some issues with play mechanics, AI, or the Xbox/PS2 versions have much better features.

In a way, I'm starting to believe that the developers are becoming as skeptical with this seedling generation as gamers are.  Everyone's waiting to see the Wii and PS3, and it doesn't look like they're willing to invest much extra cash in development on 360 versions.  We may see that shift if Sony continues to shoot themselves in the foot, whether it be the selling price of the PS3 or their lack of quality control in multiple product lines.

[Stingray]

I liked the looks of the Nintendo DS because there is a good selection of short quirky games.

The way you phrased this sounds like you do not own a DS. If that's the case you really should get one. Based on what you just posted about your gaming preferences, you'll really like the DS.

-S

[ChadTower]

I'd love to have one myself... the way my gaming purchases progress, I'll get one at a yard sale in 2008 for about $15.

[leapinlew]

I liked the looks of the Nintendo DS because there is a good selection of short quirky games.

The way you phrased this sounds like you do not own a DS. If that's the case you really should get one. Based on what you just posted about your gaming preferences, you'll really like the DS.

-S

I'd love to have one myself... the way my gaming purchases progress, I'll get one at a yard sale in 2008 for about $15.

I agree with Chad on this one. I like the looks of it, and if I time to play any platform right now - it would be the DS. My buddy has one and the reviews of games I've seen looks right up my alley. Right now, times in short supply. Playing any games (even those on my arcade) comes with some guilt.

For me, the next-gen consoles involve too much in-depth gameplay. I'm almost embrrassed to admit this, but I tried splinter cell and it involved so many buttons and commands that I couldn't make it through the games training.

** edited to change metal gear solid to splinter cell (I never played metal gear, don't know why I put it in there)

[ChadTower]

I usually can if I care, but after 15 minutes or so, I stop caring about the game enough to master working two analog sticks, multiple analog buttons and 3 different cameras in addition to the d pad and 8 buttons.

I just don't ever have 3 straight hours to play games.  That's why I moved to arcade games.

[DYNAGOD]

I liked the looks of the Nintendo DS because there is a good selection of short quirky games.

The way you phrased this sounds like you do not own a DS. If that's the case you really should get one. Based on what you just posted about your gaming preferences, you'll really like the DS.

-S

I'd love to have one myself... the way my gaming purchases progress, I'll get one at a yard sale in 2008 for about $15.

I agree with Chad on this one. I like the looks of it, and if I time to play any platform right now - it would be the DS. My buddy has one and the reviews of games I've seen looks right up my alley. Right now, times in short supply. Playing any games (even those on my arcade) comes with some guilt.

For me, the next-gen consoles involve too much in-depth gameplay. I'm almost embrrassed to admit this, but I tried splinter cell and it involved so many buttons and commands that I couldn't make it through the games training.

** edited to change metal gear solid to splinter cell (I never played metal gear, don't know why I put it in there)

i feel ya, i got splinter cell DA from gamefly a couple days ago, i just cant enjoy a game that involves so much trial and error. you gotta keep doing things over and over till you get it right. i was just as unamused by the "white light" training.. didnt spell anything out, just left you hanging on the top of a white pillar. great i have all my toys, but no mention of how to use em! (and of course gamefly supplies no manuals)
i dont want to have obtain a degree in user interface technology to be able to get to objective A.

[SirPoonga]

The 360 is having what I say is a typical console start.  The first 6 months was ports because they need to ween people over, developers aren't going to stop on current projects, etc...

As for a defining game, does it need one?  Most games are cross platform.  Anything that is first party probably has something similar on another platform.  Sony has Gran Turismo, Microsoft has Forza.  Having played both I prefer Forza because of the damage system and it has road america.  From the looks of it Gears of War and Resistance are pretty much the same type of game.

I rented the new splinter cell.  I was never into those games too much.  This one is decent.  I beat it on easy in 10 hours though.  Now that I know the level layouts normal shouldn't take much longer.  Multiplayer is a cool idea.  I hated being a spy, I liked being a merc. 

As for sports titles not having as many options that's EA.  2k sports is ok.  I prefer EA in general as they tend to be more sims and 2k tends to be more arcade.  EA had to make a new engine for the 360, that's why there are less features.  Not only did they have to make games for the older system, but they also had to make a new engine for the new systems.  I've only played NCAA 07 and Tiger Woods 07.  NCAA has some ai problems and it doesn't have the one mode where you have to go to class and build an athlete that the ps2 and xbox version have.  Tiger Woods is pretty good.  Once they fixed a bug with their online lobby system I was surprised at how many modes of play are available.

[elvis]

I usually can if I care, but after 15 minutes or so, I stop caring about the game enough to master working two analog sticks, multiple analog buttons and 3 different cameras in addition to the d pad and 8 buttons.

I just don't ever have 3 straight hours to play games.  That's why I moved to arcade games.

Sing it loud, brother!

Game consoles have turned into complex simulators.  And that's fine if you like that kind of thing, but I spend all day at work doing difficult things for hours on end.  I don't want to come home and do the same thing on a console.  Not to mention that having a family means there's no such thing as 3 hours a night for gaming any more.  15 minutes of arcade shoot 'em ups is all I get, and quite frankly is all I want these days.

Where did all the simple-yet-fun games go?  I'm definitely not getting caught up in the next-gen hype.  Too much cost, and too much effort.

[AtomSmasher]

In regards to the latest Splinter Cell and what the original poster said, the versions of splinter cell 4 on the 360 and the original xbox are apparently very different games.  Based on online reviews they are both excellent games, but the original xbox version is slightly better.  It is odd that the older system has the better reviewed game (even if it is only barely reviewed higher).

Just for the record, I don't think the 360 is a flop, I just haven't been all that impressed with it yet.  Pretty much the only game on the 360 that I really want to play is Dead Rising, which isn't enough to get me to buy the system.

[SirPoonga]

Where did all the simple-yet-fun games go?  I'm definitely not getting caught up in the next-gen hype.  Too much cost, and too much effort.

That's what the xbox live arcade is about.  There's many good small time wasters.  Cloning Clyde is pretty cool.  Find the gameplay trailer for Roboblitz, that looks cool.

NCAA 07 has minigames which I like to do.  Same with Tiger Woods., T-I-G-E-R is fun.

Viva Pinata, even though it is targetted for kids, actually looks cool.

I've been part of 2old2play.com for some time now.  It's a site for gamers over 25.  So there's alot of people there in simular situations where they have a family and such.

[ChadTower]

That's what the xbox live arcade is about.  There's many good small time wasters.  Cloning Clyde is pretty cool.  Find the gameplay trailer for Roboblitz, that looks cool.

I don't see it being worth $500 in hardware, plus the cost of networking and high speed net access, to play minigames.  Not when similar minigames can be had for free or almost free.  You don't buy a Corvette to cruise around at 15mph.

[shmokes]

I've never been excited about the 360, but it's not too bad really.  Fight Night is the only game I've seen, and it looks like they did a fantastic job on it.  It looks far better than the Fight Night I have on my Xbox.  From what I hear Dead Rising, Saint's Row and Oblivion are spectacular, can't-miss titles.  I'm sure there are others, too.  I don't pay much attention to the 360 scene.

[SirPoonga]

I don't see it being worth $500 in hardware, plus the cost of networking and high speed net access, to play minigames.  Not when similar minigames can be had for free or almost free.  You don't buy a Corvette to cruise around at 15mph.

Actually, I know someone who bought a toyota supra tt, put the orange triangle on it and drove at slow as possible.

My point was there is the possibility of short games along with the long ones is there.

However, I do think it is a misconception that modern games require time investment.  I only spent about 20 minutes playing games at a time.  It takes me 15 minutes to play 18 holes in tiger woods.  I can do a couple of burnout revenge races in 20 minutes too.  It's the RPGs that require alot of time.  Heck, according to the stats I beat the main storyline of saint's row in 11 hours, but that took me a couple weeks.

[ChadTower]

However, I do think it is a misconception that modern games require time investment.  I only spent about 20 minutes playing games at a time.  It takes me 15 minutes to play 18 holes in tiger woods.  I can do a couple of burnout revenge races in 20 minutes too.  It's the RPGs that require alot of time.  Heck, according to the stats I beat the main storyline of saint's row in 11 hours, but that took me a couple weeks.

How long was it before you became good enough at those games to do that?  The learning curve is part of that equation.  I have no desire to spend 10 half hour sessions just mastering the control scheme of a game.

11 hours is way too damn long.  I can't possibly spend 11 hours in any reasonable timeframe like two weeks.  And if you don't do it in a reasonable timeframe you forget all of the storyline details and map layouts, doubling your time investment because you have to relearn everything every other time you play.

[shmokes]

So you don't play those games.  There are lots of games, even modern games, that don't require big time investments.  Monkey Ball, Mario Party, Burnout, The Guy Game, Ikaruga, Mario Golf (or any other golf title), Mario Tennis (or any other tennis title), Animal Crossing, Bust a Move, etc.

I don't play RPGs, even though I really like them.  I've never even seen World of Warcraft and just last night turned my little brother down when he offered to give me his copy of it (he doesn't like it).  I just don't have the time for games like this and would rather not even have the temptation around.  But a lot of people do have this kind of time and they want to play games.

I can totally see not spending $500 on hardware when you only like a small minority of games, but so what?  So you're not going to be an early adopter.  A few years down the road it'll be $150 and there will be dozens of good games that cater specifically to the minority of casual gamers that you belong to.

Games may have had simpler control schemes in the past, but since the NES they still had big time requirements.  You couldn't beat Mario in 11 hours your first time through the game.  Same goes for most the other games you loved including Kid Icarus, Bionic Commando, Zelda, Metroid, Castlevania, Final Fantasy, Blaster Master, etc.  You grew up and got responsibilities.  That doesn't mean that games all have to grow up too.

[ChadTower]

You couldn't beat Mario in 11 hours your first time through the game.

No, but I was in 6th grade when I beat SMB and had unlimited time to play.  And if I wanted I could beat the game now in 15 minutes.

Same goes for most the other games you loved including Kid Icarus, Bionic Commando, Zelda, Metroid, Castlevania, Final Fantasy, Blaster Master, etc.  You grew up and got responsibilities.  That doesn't mean that games all have to grow up too.

I never said they had to grow up.  I just said I wouldn't buy them.

[SirPoonga]

Now you are just making excuses.

Another misconception, every game is complex to control.  Burnout, left stick to steer, right trigger for gas, A for boost.  Tiger Woods, pull back stick to do back swing, push forward to swing, B to zoom to the aiming area.  Defender has more complex controls (and control layout).

I suppose, if you don't have a good memory then significant time in between could be a problem.  But, when you first found out about mame and started your favorite game did you all of a sudden remembered how to play it and all the level designs?   Storylines really don't matter.  Unless it is a detective game or RPG where what people say are clues it really doesn't matter.

I'm not trying to argue with you.  It just sounds like you have misconceptions of current games.  Yeah, there are a couple of games that are complex and take a lot of time.  But that's only a couple.  If you don't have the time that's cool.  If you spend your free time doing other stuff that cool (I spend most of my free time in summer on my motorcycle).  It just sounds like you are making excuses based on assumptions or maybe a bad experience with a game.

$500 is a lot if you don't have the time.  That's understandable, I am not arguing with that either.  Like I said, it just sounds like you stereotyped modern games.

A few years down the road it'll be $150 and there will be dozens of good games that cater specifically to the minority of casual gamers that you belong to.

shmokes, if I remember chadtower likes buying old consoles when they are cheap.  I would too.  I am thinking of getting a ps2 when the ps3 comes out.  It should be really cheap.

If you want cheap short games I highly suggest the nintendo ds.  I have one mainly so I have a time waster while at the laundromat.  The cool thing is many of the game you can play with your kids too.  Games are under $30.  Most are under $20.  Many you can find used for under $15.  Other than new super mario bros I don't think I paid full price for any ds game.  Bonus, laundromat has wireless intternet.  I spend it sometime playing chess through clubhouse games with a friend of mine in minneapolis.

[ChadTower]

Now you are just making excuses.

I need excuses not to buy a 360?   

Another misconception, every game is complex to control.  Burnout, left stick to steer, right trigger for gas, A for boost.  Tiger Woods, pull back stick to do back swing, push forward to swing, B to zoom to the aiming area.  Defender has more complex controls (and control layout).

But I wouldn't buy Burnout or Tiger Woods so their controls are irrelevant.

I suppose, if you don't have a good memory then significant time in between could be a problem.  But, when you first found out about mame and started your favorite game did you all of a sudden remembered how to play it and all the level designs?

It has nothing to do with having a good memory.  It has to do with having a billion responsibilities and so many things to keep track of that actually matter that an elephant would forget details like what the next goal is in a nonlinear game.  Metroid Prime was like that... I'd play some, not be able to play for a month, and then have no freakin idea when I went back what I was supposed to do next or msot of what I had already done.  And that game was a ---smurfette--- to master control on.

If you want cheap short games I highly suggest the nintendo ds. 

My cheap scale is lower than yours.  I just got my first GBAs and SPs. 

[SirPoonga]

I give up after this.  You are not understanding that I am using examples.  Whether or not they are games you would buy is not the point.  The point is I believe they are good examples of games in general.  I can give you many more examples of games and I would end up with about 10% have complex controls and complex tasks where you can't pick up on the game after some downtime. 

Look at what I said, it is a misconception that modern games have complex controls.  Now, if I just said that with no proof you would blow it off.  So must I give some examples.  What, do I need to list every game out there just so I hit one that you might buy?  I have no idea what you would be interested in so I have to use examples I think best reflect the situation.

You are trying to come up with excuses to keep you from liking modern games based on misconceptions.

[ChadTower]

I disagree so I don't understand? 

I have played many modern games... most of which I found to have controls more complex than I felt like dealing with when considering that I didn't find the game itself all that appealing either.   How is that misunderstanding?  It's an opinion.  No more or less valid than your own.

[shmokes]

. . .that an elephant would forget details like what the next goal is in a nonlinear game. 

Elephants don't even have fingers.  They could never manipulate a modern control pad.  Now I know you're just lying.

[SirPoonga]

I disagree so I don't understand? 

I have played many modern games... most of which I found to have controls more complex than I felt like dealing with when considering that I didn't find the game itself all that appealing either.   How is that misunderstanding?  It's an opinion.  No more or less valid than your own.

You are right.  It could just be the types of games you play versus what I play.  I try to play everything but there are some types I hate like RPGs.  There are certain types that historically are difficult to control.  Most of what I play on consoles are sports, racing, shooters, scrollers, flight combat, and quirky games like katamari.  I don't find any of those more complex in controls than classic arcade games.  Most just use the joystick and button mash a couple of buttons like classic arcade does

[ChadTower]

Yep... and when I'm looking to play on a console I'm looking to play something I can't in the arcade... like the aforementioned Metroid Prime or Luigi's Mansion (which had deceptively pain in the ass controls).

[leapinlew]

Another misconception, every game is complex to control.  Burnout, left stick to steer, right trigger for gas, A for boost.  Tiger Woods, pull back stick to do back swing, push forward to swing, B to zoom to the aiming area.  Defender has more complex controls (and control layout).

Tigers woods is pull back stick to do a swing and push forward to swing... lets not forget:

Spin - you can add spin to your shot by hitting a button while driving it

Stance - depending on how you want to drive the ball. You can step up in your stance to shoot more of a line drive, or back in your stance to give it more air (I may have those backwards)

Clubs - pick the proper club for the shot. You may not need to use full power depending on your distance to the hole.

Wind - Calculate wind into your shot

Water - if shooting over water, you may want to club-up to make sure you get the proper distance

Putting - Consider the greens and how it's laid out. You can't simply hit the ball at the hole.

Attributes - as you play, you can gain attribute points to put into your player. There are several columns to put your attributes and they will improve your strength, accuracy, luck etc.

Gear - you can buy clothes, hats, clubs that also contribute to your attributes

Money - you can't buy gear without money. There are many ways to get money - but it's up to you to learn the best ways.

Defender:
Shoot bad guys
Save Humans

Now, I'm not saying that Defender is easy. Compare Tiger Woods Golf to Vs. Golf and I think you'll see that Tiger Woods Golf is much more complicated. It's not that EVERY game on the next gen consoles are complicated - just all of them that would be worth buying a next gen console are.

[SirPoonga]

I could say you simplified Defender too.  There's like 5 buttons and a joystick to defender, you didn't list 5 actions

To play a simple game of golf in Tiger you don't need all that stuff.  It makes your score better in career mode but you don't need it to just play a game of golf.
If you select play now and use the default tiger woods character you can do play pretty well just swinging the club and aiming.

BTW, to be complete you for got mashing the A button to power up 

[ChadTower]

Yeah, but if you want to be good at it, why would you want to play "a simple game of golf"?

[SirPoonga]

Same reason one would blast as many asteroids as possible instead of drive up the score

[ChadTower]

You drive up the score by blasting as many asteroids as possible.  The only other way is to leave a few asteroids and wait for all the ships to blast them... which is actually more difficult to do than blasting all of the asteroids.

[WaRpEd]

I own a 360 platinum and enjoy the racing type games mostly.
Graphics are excellent although some of the game physics aren't quite right.
I don't know if I'd call the 360 a flop or just not being ported as well as other consoles. I remember when the Ps2 came out there was a great selection either but after a year the game developers were making better games for it.