BioShock has always been developed for the PC as well and has never been a real exclusive for the console. Timely, yes, like Ubisoft did with the European PS2 versions of "The Sands of Time" and "Beyond Good & Evil", but in no way a true exclusive like PDZ or Kameo for instance.
I'd take a timed exclusive over PDZ or Kameo any day =/
Besides, in the industry there is a distinction between console gamers and PC gamers; when you talk of console exclusivity, you usually disregard the PC. Most games make their way to it anyway (even if via long and arduous development roots, like Halo - designed for the Mac, then the PC, then the Xbox, and finally ported to the PC).
Furthermore, you're wrong about the Vista thing. Vista only introduces Live Anywhere, which allows you to play against 360 users of a specific game and vice versa. Shadowrun (FPS from FASA Studios, who did Crimson Skies) is one of them. This service also allows you to earn achievements from games that support Live Anywhere, voice chat with people that have a 360, send messages et cetera. In no way will you be able to play actual 360 games on your PC.
Now who's talking about something they don't know? I'm running Windows Vista RC1. Microsoft hasn't announced Vista compatibility for 360 games yet (mainly because computers aren't powerful enough, I believe) but several signs point to it happening in the future:
1. The Games Console. This feature is only available in Windows Vista Ultimate (Which retails for more than an Xbox 360 Core pack).
The Console:
My laptop's (rather pathetic) performance score:
Supreme Commander System Requirements:
2. Vista also has built in support for the Xbox 360 Wired controller out of the box, and will support the Wireless controller in the final release.
3. Microsoft is encouraging developers to not require an install for a game to work; future Games for Vista releases will be able to be put straight in the DVD drive and run, just like putting a game in a console.
4. XNA, or DirectX 10, is the programming libraries that all Xbox 360 games use. These same libraries are used for creating games for Vista. Games developed for the Xbox 360 can be played on a Vista computer, as long as the code is compiled for Vista at the moment; the code doesn't even need to be changed. There is nothing stopping Microsoft from creating a Windows enivronment that allows it to run games compiled for the Xbox 360, as long as the system meets a minimum performance requirement (which I imagine would be quite substantial).
I'm not claiming that X360 games WILL run on Vista one day; i'm saying that it is very possible, and the infrastructure is already in place.
Like I told you, once you get over its superficial faults, it's a blast to play both in single and multiplayer. It's not like most shooters have worthwhile stories (Half-Life is a rare exception and Halo blew). Control system works well after you slightly adjust the sensitivity, unless you're talking about "no jump button". This really isn't a flaw (some shooters just shouldn't allow jumping, it looks silly) and you automatically hop over low fences 'n shit. Rolling further negates the removal of jump; thus PDZ plays differently than most shooters thanks to this (together with a lower pace and cover). The A.I.'s ok, not really worse or better than the majority of shooters, but Halo, F.E.A.R. and Gears of War are the only ones with extraordinary A.I. in its genre.
I like Halo's storyline and universe. Guess it's not to everyone's tastes. Also, speaking of Halo, no matter how you adjust the sensitivity on PDZ, it always feels lacking compared to Halo's control scheme. Bungie nailed console FPS controls in Halo, and considering that Rare is now a first party studio as well, I consider it unforgivable that Microsoft didn't pool some resources and get some of Bungie's engineers to fine-tune PDZ.
As for the AI, you're absolutely right; it's average. The only first-person-shooters I play are Halo and Half-Life, because I don't like shooting pigs in a barrel.
But I digress; if you enjoy Perfect Dark Zero, than that's fantastic. I was just incredibly disappointed by it.
Graphically, it's still a pretty game overall (Jungle level was gorgeous), especially the quality of its textures. Call of Duty 2? Nope. F.E.A.R.? Nope, even though it's slightly superior than the PC version. Prey? Not really, at least not on 360. Sure, some levels look pretty stale (almost every game suffers from this), but even now it can still compete with other shooters minus Gears of War. The art style for the character models is about the only thing that looks (has nothing to do with reading previews now!) bad.
I'm not saying that Perfect Dark Zero is alone in sub-standard graphics; the other three games you mentioned are PC ports. Prey in particular was disappointing, because the game looks better on my 3 year old PC than it does on my 360. But compared to Oblivion (and yes, I know it is a completely different genre), the graphics are substandard.
Or, you could've used another verb or an altered sentence in which you would clarify that you're talking about their concepts. But, coincidently, you "happened" to name games that are (or in Too Human's case, were) praised again and again for their graphics and how they were pushing the hardware. So, I wasn't just "digging".
I'm sorry that I wasn't clear enough for you.
See above. And why compare two completely different games like that?
Because we're talking about system-defining games; a system-defining game can encompass all genres. The PlayStation's killer app was Final Fantasy VII; the Nintendo 64 had Super Mario 64, the PlayStation 2 had Metal Gear Solid 2, the Xbox had Halo, the GameCube had Resident Evil 4 (even though it took its time coming), and the Xbox 360 has: nothing definite yet. Only time can tell what the console defining game will be, and I don't believe Gears of War is it. I wouldn't be arrogant enough to presume that even if it ends up being my favourite game on the system; I was just expressing the fact that I believe Mass Effect, BioShock and Too Human seem like better candidates.
Final Fantasy VII, IX and Shadow Hearts II are my current favorites. Haven't played NWN or Baldur's Gate, but at least those seem more interesting than their console projects despite their age. I also really liked Dragon Quest VIII, but I can understand if people didn't approve of it 'cause of its "old-school" nature. I did like Diablo II and The Bard's Tale (Xbox), so I like me some hack 'n slash. Might try out the Fallouts, Runescape and Shadowrun (the RPG) if I ever get the chance.
But, I don't play RPG's for their scope. A good RPG for me equals interesting characters, dito environments, fights that are actually fun and at least decent story. To me, most western RPG's fail on almost every one of these aspects. Take Oblivion for example: shit battles (copying Dark Messiah would've done wonders), a lacklustre story (CLOSE THE GATES OR WE ALL DIE! NOTHING MORE TO SAY!) and barely any characters that were worth noticing.
And here is the nature of our difference of opinion; you are a fan of story-based Japanese RPGs. That's fine, because I am, too. I just prefer western character-based RPGs. For a long time now, I believe Japanese RPGs have been stagnating; the Final Fantasy series in particular. In any Final Fantasy game in the main series (bar XI and XII, but i'll get there in a moment), there is no difficulty in the game. You don't have to have good tactics or reflexes to finish a Final Fantasy game; if you can't beat a particular boss, you go back and grind until you're a high enough level to defeat it. Towards endgame, most battles consist of hitting X until all the enemies are dead.
Of course, there are battles in every FF game that require strategic thinking; most boss fights, and of course super-boss fights like the WEAPONS in FF7. But apart from those times, i've found that I only enjoy FF games when the story is advancing, via in-game dialogue or a cut-scene. And the stories are excellent; Final Fantasy X is still may favourite story told in game-form of all time. (That is disregarding, of course, Final Fantasy X-2; sorry Prak).
But I still believe that Knights of the Old Republic is a better game. The reason? Immersion. A really good game will draw you in, make you feel like you are part of the action; to me, playing Final Fantasy is always akin to watching an epic movie. You can be emotionally invested, but only to a point. In Knights of the Old Republic, there are so many little touches that make you feel like you are part of the game world. And the best part of playing KotOR is that the battles are enjoyable; if you're quick on your feet you can press the commands for your character to follow, or if you prefer a more strategic route, you can pause the action and give commands to each character so they can carry it out.
Sound familiar? It is the system that Square-Enix adapted for use in Final Fantasy XII, and kudos to them. I haven't had a chance to play the game yet (there isn't even a mention of an Australian release date yet, unfortunately), but if the battles are as enjoyable as KotOR's, along with a fantastic Square-Enix storyline (and given that the director of the game is none other than the director of Vagrant Story, one of the best PlayStation RPGs, I have faith in that), it could take a very high place in my list.
Now, you're absolutely right; the stories in most American games are lacking. In some games (Half-Life 2, for example), the story is implied by creating a game world, and I still find that as enjoyable as watching a linear story unfold in a Final Fantasy game. I don't believe that this sort of story telling is better or worse; it is just different, and is something that must be enjoyed in a different way. I enjoyed KotOR because BioWare captured the feel of the Star Wars universe perfectly (in a game set 5000 years before the movies, no mean feat). I enjoyed Jade Empire because their original world was rich and full of wonder. I didn't have to care about the main storyline to enjoy the game (i've actually forgotten Jade Empire's), I just enjoy the richness of the world.
And it's obvious by the success of World of WarCraft, which one can argue HAS no story, just a world, that people crave immersion in an RPG more than being told a story. I enjoy World of Warcraft, but I dislike the fact that i'm unable to change anything; the world is very static. I'm looking forward to Mass Effect, because it has a large galaxy as its scope, and offers the player the ability to make their mark on that virtual world. It also offers unlimited replayability, because different actions will lead to different consequences, different alliances; I'll probably finish Final Fantasy XII in three days (like I did with Kingdom Hearts 2), but Mass Effect will keep me coming back months down the line.
However, like I said, they are different games. Please don't mistake a different kind of storytelling as a sub-par one.
Now, I'm not a pro-jRPG guy (hate Kingdom Hearts, hate FFX, don't like the Dark Cloud series and FFXII doesn't do much for me) and I'm not saying that all of them are on par with a well-written book. But at least the plot tries to motivate you to go on, even if it's a terribly clich� tale of "Save the god damn world you worthless bum!". Hearing some things about it from other people, I already know that I do not like Oblivion's way because I am no fan of free-roaming RPG's that don't focus all that much on story. Relatively pretty graphics didn't help it either, seeing how it's still sealed in my closet even though I got it for free. Hell, if I wanted to play an RPG with a large scope, I would've bought an MMORPG, but I loathe them.
Heh, I should have read ahead. All i'm asking is that you respect the fact that you are biased towards the particular genre; a bias doesn't affect the quality of a game, thankfully.
Jade Empire: boring characters (though Roderick the Magnificant Bastard was entertaining), boring world and terribly executed fighting system. KOTOR: better than JE, but I found some of the characters pretty eh (the sarcastic robot sometimes) and a Star Wars setting doesn't save the day for someone who isn't a Star Wars-nut to begin with. Battles were also better, but not that much better than turn-based as some made it out to be.
Well, i'm a Star Wars nut. Guilty as charged. But once again you're letting personal tastes cloud judgment; many, many people think that HK-47 is one of the best video game characters ever. But nevertheless, this is still just a question of your taste.
C stands for? First time I heard of that.
Console RPG. An archaic naming system now, but it's what Japanese RPGs used to be referred to, before western-style RPGs started making the move from the PC to the console.
And I can't answer that question because, as I thoroughly explained above, I am no ally of most large, free-roaming western RPG's. I did like the Zelda-esque overworld of Dragon Quest VIII. While Mass Effect appeals me more than their previous outing, BioWare still has a lot to prove, like whether or not the story will be enough motivation for me to finish it and if the fighting evolved beyond the stale battle mechanics they showed at E3.
This is the sort of statement that angers me; BioWare has nothing to prove. If they want to win you over, maybe, but in order to do that they'd have to alienate millions of their fans. All I ask is not to make judgements because of a personal bias.
Again: no need to fucking patronize me, acting like I'm just spewing out bullshit with no foundation. Yes, developers do attempt to optimize their framerate, but many of them don't succeed, especially the western developers. Advanced Warfighter? Pretty on the surface, but irregular framerate, lots of screen tearing, illogical pop-up at times, a fair amount of bugs (Jesus Crucification pose while in prone position) and a mixed bag concerning their textures. It did have amazing lightning at times and well-improved animations when compared to the previous installment, but by no means is it optimized. I can give you more examples if you want.
A lot of western games have a rushed development process, true. But consider that the Japanese games you're comparing them to are being created by a company that knows it is going to sell the games just because it has 'Final Fantasy' printed on the cover. In the case of Final Fantasy X (i'm using it as an example of a highly-polished game here), it escapes screen-tearing and choppy framerate by controlling the camera. Many Japanese games use this; when they give the user control of the camera (such as Kingdom Hearts 2, and the reworked camera in Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence), there are the same framerate issues and camera clipping problems as any other western game.
I can tell you this from a development standpoint; there is no way to test absolutely every situation in a game that has a free-roaming camera. There are literally trillions of different problems that come with allowing the user to control what they can see in a virtual environment. Now, granted, there are games in which they have been tested to perfection (like Gears of War, or so i've heard a million times so far), but remember that Gears of War has been in development since the day the Xbox 360 was announced. That's nearly two years; 18 months more development time than most games get.
Make no mistake, I'm no Japanophile, but when comparing Western games against Eastern games on several platforms (starting from the PS2), it's easy to notice that the work mentality of Japanese companies is different. Take a look at Capcom's Lost Planet: not only does it rival Gears of War, its demo was already more polished than the retail version of G.R.A.W., not to mention Capcom still had 8 months time to finish their game. Ubisoft ain't that bad though: they miraculously enhanced some of their next-gen games with only a month or two to go (G.R.A.W., SC: DA, Red Steel, ...) before.
I'm just saying it seems unreasonable to assume something as racist as 'Japanese people make games better'. They are under less corporate pressure, probably (as is Ubisoft, funnily enough, because they're French), which means they don't have the US failure of having to concede to marketing over game design. But immediately dismissing western games is a mistake.
Again: don't just assume I know jack shit. I've been a part of several local press sites now (granted, not all that important websites, press in general is shit over here) and it would be embarrassing if I didn't get my facts straight. I know some history about Silicon Knights (they did Blood Omen), I've been mildly looking forward to some of their games, I'm aware that Irrational Games used to be Looking Glass Studios and that System Shock 2 is allegedly one of the best horror games of all time (and that god damn EA holds the right to its sequel). Why do you think I'm enthralled about BioShock? Because (if approached with ignorance) it looks like a beautiful FPS, seeing how I described System Shock as an FPS (OMIGOSH! WHERE!? I MUST BE GOING BLIND!!!!)? Fuck no.
I'm not assuming you're ignorant. If I thought you were, I wouldn't even bother arguing with you; I can tell from your post style that you're intelligent and informed. I just believe you have an unfair bias.
Then don't go monkeying about how Viva Pi�ata undoubtedly sucks. Saying that the genre isn't appealing and maybe add why you dislike similar games would've been far more objective. Plus, you never played it. Yet you state that "Mass Effect is going to be THE best RPG on the 360, and possibly the best RPG ever.", despite that it's still a work-in-progress (not much has been shown either) and that you haven't played it?
Haha, see I have the same issue; i'm biased against Viva Pinata being a killer app because of its designated market (12 and under). That is an unfair assumption to make.
Also: I withdraw my statement about Mass Effect, as it was 3 am and my brain wasn't working properly. What I meant to say is that I believe that Mass Effect will be the best RPG on the 360; I can't prognosticate. But it's the game i'm most hyped up about.
Yet your reasoning for why it isn't innovative in some regards is barely non-existant, let alone not well thought out. Next thing you know, you're going to say that Half-Life and Halo didn't innovate the genre at all in their own respective ways. We already know that you getting Gears of War won't influence your current opinion, so stop pretending that you're open-minded about this matter.
I'm sorry, but I am open minded. I'm used to the only people posting here being rabid fanboys, and all I was asking the original poster for was proof of his claims. The onus is on him to prove innovation, as he claimed it; not me.
I'd understand your point of view if I had claimed that it was not possible for Gears of War to be innovative; I just claimed that from previews i'd seen, it was a very well executed action-game.
P.S.: IOTA meaning? Either you screwed up the writing of said term or I just never heard of it.
Main Entry: io�ta
Pronunciation: I-'O-t&
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from Greek iOta, of Semitic origin; akin to Hebrew yOdh yod
1 : the 9th letter of the Greek alphabet -- see ALPHABET table
2 : an infinitesimal amount : JOT : did not show an iota of interest
:smrt:
What a laughable argument. If you're going to expand your point-of-view like that, then every game has cover, seeing how you can stand behind obstacles for protection in any game! Hell, might as well add that Dune invented squad-based tactics, since RTS games are virtually the same as shooters or turn-based action games like Worms!
It was an argument, it was a statement of fact. You ask me why I chose those games, and I stated that I chose them because they were on the 360.
