Gameguru Mania

ggrobot · Elite Member Joined: 28 May 2004 Posts: 53594

TeamXbox has conducted an interesting interview with Todd Holmdahl of Microsoft talking about the Xbox 360 hardware. Here's a taster:

The Xbox 360 has three general purpose cores and three VMX vector units (one per core) while the PS3 has one CPU core, one vector unit, and seven SPEs. These differences found in

Read more...

Source: GGMania headlines
GGMania.com - Daily Gaming and Tech news

tub0rg · Junior Member Joined: 05 Jun 2005 Posts: 151

Same old corprate guy talk.... our product rocks their sucks like always...
Even if the xbox360 would outperform the ps3 (what i seriosly doub at this point) i still would go for the ps3 because i like the game series more, tekken mgs gt etc.. (why does ms advertise halo so much? beside the shooter wasent even really good in gameplay i wanna have a mouse and a desk when i play fps games, doh) and you always get fancy controllers for the ps... the eye toy for example. thats a big reason to get a console in the first place... getting fancy controllers.. ms didnt seem to get this, they didnt even copy the eye toy till now.

Nosferatu · Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 8:50 pm Post subject:

As you said Tuborg, every person chooses the console only for the titles he loves so much. You like mgs, I'd rather choose SplinterCell... and then I'm an addict to Halo (the gameplay is nothing short of amazing)!!! I'd get an Xbox thus. In the end the tech of one console won't be too superior over the other. PS comes in half a year time span after Xbox's release, they'll have some time for tweaking. So they have some advantage. Saying Xbox 360 is Xbox 1.5 is an idiotic statement. They say that only because PS2 is old hardware when comparing to Xbox, so PS3 leaps farther away from previous generation than Xbox360 does. In fact PS2 isn't able to handle Doom3, Splinter Cell or any other graphically complex title.

tub0rg · Junior Member Joined: 05 Jun 2005 Posts: 151

what exactly do you like about halo? single player multi player? i dont want to argue about wich is the better game or anything im just curius, like i like mgs because it has a good story with deep charakters and even a massege while i dont like splinter cell because i think the charakters are flat and the story is very predictable so im curios what do people like about it...

Nosferatu · Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 9:26 am Post subject:

Halo has a very original setting and storyline. The design of characters and monsters is great. You seem to fight in the same situations all the time, still every time your experience is different. I know that lots of people found Halo boring and repetitive... well, I didn't. I didn't play multiplayer in Halo.
As for Splinter Cell I didn't really find interest in storyline, but the gameplay mechanics were brilliant. Immersive ambient surroundings, suspense... I can keep writing and writing for ever about it.
You might think I'm too dumb to appreciate the story in a game, but it isn't so. I loved the story in Beyond Good and Evil. And it had a message too!!! It is probably the best game I ever played in my 18 year old life.

tub0rg · Junior Member Joined: 05 Jun 2005 Posts: 151

I dont think your dumb for not paying so much attention to the story after all its a game not a book... Smile

as for halo, single player is a big question of taste so i can understand people like it while i didnt and i hated the multi player but there is actually no multi player i like since they fucked up cs beyond any recognition like 2 years back or something...
i can also see why people like splinter cell for its gameplay wich is very similar to mgs and its atmbient and athmospere, so i nearly played through the first sc but the story couldnt get me to finish it then comes splinter cell 2, wich mp i found quiet good actually but the 2vs2 limitation kicked it out for me, but still it was the best mp i saw in a loooong time, but the single player same stuff again better graphics and i hate that pseudo freedom like u can rope donw at spicific points and you can climb pipes and ropes, it just fellt really linear like the lvl desingner had 1 way in mind und u walk his footsteps.. ( in defense i have to say that splinter cell 2 was made by a diffrent studio then 1 and 3, the original studio startet working on sc3 after 1 was finished and the publisher brought in another studio to squezze one in for the ride Smile

, but since i played like 2 level of sc2 before i kicked it i dont think sc3 would be more too my liking..
even in some game design handbooks you find the note that your gameplay has to hook the people or they wont listen to your story till the end... i essentially disagree if you have a good story people will stay even if you gameplay isnt kick ass and as far as gameplay goes their is maybe 1 title a year wich really has a new innovative gameplay but hundrets of titles that could use a better story. if were really honest most of the times the only diffrence between the old games and the new ones are the graphics or map size, even the crossovers getting out of the trend, like in san andreas, after having played gta 1 and 2 and 3 and vice city, i find myself after maybe having played 2 hours of sa bored to death, and no rpg or dance elements change that...

Nosferatu · Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 11:46 am Post subject:

I'll comment only on one thing -- you saying next generation games are different only in graphics. I disagree. Quake2 -- the best game of the time period. And now, compare it to the best games of the year 2005. I see the difference not only in visuals, I see absolutely other worlds: richer, better in every way.
Simply put, we love games for the interactivity they provide, its amount is totally dependant on the horsepower of our hardware. Thus every crop of nextgen games brings improvements.

tub0rg · Junior Member Joined: 05 Jun 2005 Posts: 151

first of you compare a game wich came out 1997 with games 8 years later wich is like an comparison wich the stone age, in that time span yeah i agree games have improved but your also compare apples with bannas, not even a year later mgs came out for playstation at least in japan, parasite eve also was realeased in 1998 since quake 2 came out around november if i remember right it gets even closer so i really dont agree that quake 2 was the best game of that time period. yes games are loved for their interactivity but i dont see that many improvments between quake2 and doom3 (quake3 was only multiplayer so i leave it out) in terms of interactivity, the biggest improvments would be you got a flash lite your can klick on computer screens to open hatches and stuff and you can perform a click on other charakters that dosent kill em...you could say switching to the information menu in doom3 and listen to the recordet audio masseges is some kind of interactivity. and yeah interactivity is based somewhat on hardware im just saying that the hardware is mostly not used to improve the mechanics but to improve the graphics