If I can make until the release, I'm going to try and get rid of my yet-to-RROD console, and get the new slim model.
If I can make until the release, I'm going to try and get rid of my yet-to-RROD console, and get the new slim model.
Well I don't like it very much. That's just my opinion.
I'll give ya that on the Xbox controller reliability, it's hard finding ones that actually work. Thankfully the rest of the controller is good.I owned all 3 consoles from their release and bought a lot of software for all of them. The PS2 is more reliable than Xbox hardware IMO. I've seen sticks fail and lose calibration permanently for no reason on official S controllers more than once.
EDIT: Missing bracketI thought the GameCube was just fine. Again just my opinion.As far as the Gamecube is concerned, it's not worth a legitimate comparison. It's controller was absolutely terrible, but it worked.
Either like Kool Kitty said and it used a standard API or the devs paid for support.
Thanks for clearing that up. All I remembered was something about clear hardware differences. It's been a while since I ever needed to remember something Xbox related. Nobody ever talks about it.
EDIT: Added another quote The Wii isn't compatible with the Game Boy Player, that alone is a crime!
Last edited by Guntz; 03-29-2010 at 09:14 PM.
Sony's first/2nd party stuff holds up very well. Gran Turismo 4 still looks pretty good, as does Final Fantasy X.
Sorry, I'm quoting you!If I recall correctly, so don't quote me on this, Microsoft's contract with Nvidia to produce the Xbox's chipset ran out, which is why the Xbox was so abruptly dropped like it was.
Nvidia manufactured and owned the rights to the graphics chipset. Nvidia could charge MS whatever they had agreed to when they'd signed the contract, so the price really never came down. MS couldn't cut costs on the console, because of the Nvidia chipset, thus they couldn't lower prices on a console that was already losing money to produce.
I thought the dual-shock was alright, until I had used the S-controller on the XBox. The L2 and R2 triggers just feel out of place and the controller is too small for the average sized hands.Just to get this out of the way, I never grew up with Sony consoles so I have no nostalgic disposition to the hardware in any way. I have given the controller an objective assessment and my opinion has and probably will never change. The PS controller is just plain awful.
The D-Pad sucks, the left control stick is in the wrong place, the face buttons are retarded, the handles do not offer sufficient grip to hold onto the controller very well and because of the controller's terrible shape, I often have trouble using the R1, R2, L1 and L2 buttons at the same time.
Did we really need BC with older sports titles?
The choices were rather odd and in some cases rather suspicious. I highly doubt it would have been that difficult to port the arcade compilations offered by Midway, Taito and Konami. Midway's Arcade Treasures was great on the XBox, because it had online high score tables, and you could also compare scores with your friends. I have a feeling they weren't supported, so MS could charge us to buy those games one at a time for the 360.
Last edited by gamevet; 03-29-2010 at 10:24 PM.
A Black Falcon: no, computer games and video games are NOT the same thing. Video games are on consoles, computer games are on PC. The two kinds of games are different, and have significantly different design styles, distribution methods, and game genre selections. Computer gaming and console (video) gaming are NOT the same thing."
The only things that stunk about the original Xbox when it was time to purchase a system in that generation was that it couldn't play DVDs without the remote (a big deal for me when it came out - and it wasn't already backwards compatible with something before it) and I didn't know any of the exclusive titles at the time.
So, the PS2 was a much better decision at the time. But, as time went on, the Xbox and its growing army of exclusives, namely Halo 2 and FarCry: instincts, grew on me and I eventually preferred Xbox over the PS2.
My best gaming buddy Lance bought an Xbox 360 on the launch day and subsequently sold me his Xbox. I got my time on it and had the games I liked the most, namely MVP Baseball 2005 and Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2005.
When I got the 360, finally and got the Farcry game (which sucks compared to the original Xbox game), I was okay with them not having all of the games backwards compatible. It was with the idea that they were constantly adding games to the list (somewhere I read that). But, then I'm pretty sure they stopped doing it somewhere down the line.
So, I went out and bought a PS2 for those sports games and only play the Xbox games that are emulated. I probably will buy a Xbox again to figure out how to hack it to play emulators and to have the original library available. That's my four cents.
Sega-16's Resident Sports Authority. Chief Heckler of the Midwest.
Next up on the tee:
Tecmo Super Bowl III
Bass Masters Classic
Xbox 360 doesn't emulate Xbox games. It plays recompiled & modified .exe's natively that can use the same game files. It was originally called the Direct X(Box) for a reason.
If the warranty is expired (or expires before it RRODs), you might consider a preventative mod rather than replacement. The same mod used to repair RROD'd consoles (with desoldered GPUs), but before the GPU desolders itsself.
Granted, that only fixes the most prevalent problem (overheating GPU and board warping), other things like the DVD drive can still be problematic. (and overheating can still occur, and the system is designed to automatically shut off -giving 2 bar red ring, it's just far less likely to be damaged by such)
It doesn't work with the game boy player, but I'm not aware of anything else that's a problem. A ton of games will only run in 480i though, so if the TV/monitor has problems with that, that's a separate issue.
Is the situation with ATi and the Xenos any different? Does MS own a license for it, or the rights to the chip?
I'll go one step further and say the Duke is my preferred Xbox controller and my favorite to second favorite stock controller of that console generation, so you can imagine the small size of the dual shock controller hits all the harder; except Nintendo managed to design the small GC controller to be fairly comfortable with big hands too. (better than N64, in spite of the smaller size) It's all about the grip shape and button placement. (and button size/shape/resistance -N64 was better in that regard IMO)I thought the dual-shock was alright, until I had used the S-controller on the XBox. The L2 and R2 triggers just feel out of place and the controller is too small for the average sized hands.
I think the early dual analog controller released to the west was better in that respect, with the much longer grips. Otherwise, there's 3rd party controllers to look at.
Hence why games bypassing the Direct X API (either using a modified/cusomt API, or using direct hardware access for certain things -as was the norm on older consoles) is problematic for such "compatibility."
ATI has been a lot more flexible with their technologies than NVidia has. They've been working with IBM to incorporate their technology into a single chip that has the GPU and CPU together. It may be in the upcoming design of the 360 slim.
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/valhalla...news-6160.html
It's also worth noting that Nintendo was able to sell the GC (ATI flipper) for $99. I doubt they'd do that at a loss.
Last edited by gamevet; 03-30-2010 at 01:44 AM.
A Black Falcon: no, computer games and video games are NOT the same thing. Video games are on consoles, computer games are on PC. The two kinds of games are different, and have significantly different design styles, distribution methods, and game genre selections. Computer gaming and console (video) gaming are NOT the same thing."
All that proves is that the game was recompiled much less efficiently than it was originally made for the Xbox: OR the game did some non-standard stuff bypassing the API and that needed to be emulated in software. (or both)
It's more like extensive patches than emulation. (to the extent of a patch replacing the original game executable entirely and possibly adding some bits to that to emulate the non-standard bits)
And AMD is fine with the IBM collaboration?
All that makes you wonder why MS didn't go for ATi in the first place...It's also worth noting that Nintendo was able to sell the GC (ATI flipper) for $99. I doubt they'd do that at a loss.
I've also wondered why MS went with an Intel CPU rather than AMD, but maybe Intel had better offerings for embedded implementations than AMD... Usually AMD has higher cost/performance components available though. Maybe power consumption came into play too. --The most comparable Duron had 50% higher power dissipation and 1/2 the L2 cache, but 3x the FSB speed. (though the latter may not have been that important due to the shared bus architecture of the Xbox) Edit: FSB is only 50% faster, I was thinking of the Celeron 733, the PIII 733 has 2x the FSB speed.
Doing a quick look at wiki's pages, it looks like the ATi Radeon 8500 was the closest to the Xbox's chipset in performance at the time (or the GeForce 3 the latter was derived from), not sure how those compared cost-wise though. (short of that, the next closest is the Radeon 7500 I think)
And the closest AMD CPU to the PIII/Celleron 733 (FSB is as fast as PIII, but L2 is 1/2 like Celeron) would probably be a Duron 700. (and power dissipation is only 27% higher in that case, the Duron 750 leaps to 50%)
All hindsight now, but ATi and AMD's merger would probably have made things even more cost effective had MS used their chipsets. (in the context of the 360, the ca 2005 Athlon 64 X2)
Of course, that's only considering stock offerings; the Xenon was a custom job as was the PIII derivative of the Xbox (albeit the latter was pretty much a PIII 733 with 1/2 the cache and compact package)
Nintendo's graphics processor was originally created by a company called Art-X, who were bought by Ati shortly before the GC's release. Also, I read an interview once of one of Nintendo's female executives who claimed Nintendo has never sold a console at a loss. The idea is just absurd to them. That kind of reinforces the claim GC's were being made for about $35 towards the end of the system's life cycle.
Well shitbeans, that's a 360 game... ok, I thought it was an Xbox game. Thks for the clrification.
Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth
Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay
Cold War
Colin McRae Rally 2005
Counter Strike (this came out for Xbox? lol... really?)
Deus Ex: Invisible War
Doom 3 (wow, I bet this looks gash on Xbox)
Doom 3 ROE
Dreamfall: The Longest Journey
Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind
Fable: The Lost Chapters
Far Cry
Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter
Half-Life 2 (again, must look gash on Xbox)
Halo
House of the Dead 3
Jade Empire: Special Edition
Serious Sam
Serious Sam II
Shadow Ops: Red Mercury
Soldier of Fortune 2
Sonic Mega Collection
Special Forces Nemesis Strike
Still Life
Thief: Deadly Shadows
TRON 2.0
Unreal Tournament
Unreal 2
World War II: Combat Road To Berlin
Worms 4: Mayhem
I have all of those ^ for PC. Those aren't "console exclusives"... Counterstrike, Half Life 2, Doom 3, Farcry, ESIII, the Serious Sam games, and the Unreal games are PC originals. Do a lil bit more homework on your list next time, but thanks for the list regardless.
Impressive list... it's making me think about getting an Xbox now.. but fukin a, I'm not buying an Xbox and a 360. Microsoft should have made the 360 backwards compatible.
what to do...
Jesus Christ... this really makes me want to mod an Xbox and not give Microsoft my money. WHYth does anyone support them when they make such a shitty product?
Do you know how many computers I've had go bad on me in my lifetime... I've never lost a CPU or a GPU. I've lost a couple HDs and that's it.
I'm not surprised current Consoles have issues like this... the same can be said for computers sold at Best Buy = they're poorly put together and the components are less than optimal.
I'm well aware those game are also available on PC, but was pretty sure the term "console exclusive" meant the game in question was exclusive to a platform in the home console market, while also available on PC, i.e., "Mass Effect is a console exclusive for 360", at least Wikipedia acknowledges the term. Though I can imagine PC fans don't take very kindly to it.
But either way, a lot of good PC games on Xbox that were never on PS2 or GameCube.
That doesn't sound right. The Flipper GPU was talked about long before the GC was released. The name flipper came from Gamecub'e code-name: project Dolphin.
As long as AMD is making money (and it's not lining Intel's pockets) they're probably fine with that.
The Geforce 3 was considered the best bang for the buck back then. MS contracted Nvidia to come up with a custom version of the GF3, and that's what ended up in the Xbox.All that makes you wonder why MS didn't go for ATi in the first place...
Honestly, Intel was the best chip manufacturer on the planet at the time. AMD probably didn't have the resources to pump out millions of chips within a year's time either.I've also wondered why MS went with an Intel CPU rather than AMD, but maybe Intel had better offerings for embedded implementations than AMD... Usually AMD has higher cost/performance components available though. Maybe power consumption came into play too. --The most comparable Duron had 50% higher power dissipation and 1/2 the L2 cache, but 3x the FSB speed. (though the latter may not have been that important due to the shared bus architecture of the Xbox) Edit: FSB is only 50% faster, I was thinking of the Celeron 733, the PIII 733 has 2x the FSB speed.
Don't forget, this was a custom P3. It may have had better specs than your standart PIII @ 733Mhz.
Last edited by gamevet; 03-30-2010 at 06:05 PM.
A Black Falcon: no, computer games and video games are NOT the same thing. Video games are on consoles, computer games are on PC. The two kinds of games are different, and have significantly different design styles, distribution methods, and game genre selections. Computer gaming and console (video) gaming are NOT the same thing."
If that's the case, Nintendo must be making a killing on the Wii.
But, at the time, would it have been clear to be the best long-term strategy? (without the benefit of hindsight, I mean) Did ATi have a similar reputation then of greater flexibility compared to Nvidia?
Heh, wasn't that one of the major reasons Apple had for switching to X86 CPUs?Honestly, Intel was the best chip manufacturer on the planet at the time. AMD probably didn't have the resources to pump out millions of chips within a year's time either.
Still, if AMD had been willing to allow for second sourcing on whatever chip was chosen, that problem could have been addressed. (I'd imagine as long as the licensing agreements were tight enough and AMD had their own quota, it might have worked)
But it really wouldn't matter that much overall, if Intel was the best cost/flexibility option fine. Pretty much any X86 CPU should be fully backwards compatible as long as the older drivers are supported. (then again, a different video card shouldn't have mattered either as long as it was compatible with the APIs used -except games bypassing the standard APIs)
Yes, I mentioned that, and again, it seems to be 1/2 way between the Coppermarine Celeron and PIII, with the 128 kB L2 cache of the Celeron and 133 MT/s FSB of the full PIII. (Celeron 733 used a 66 MT/s FSB)Don't forget, this was a custom P3. It may have had better specs than your standart PIII @ 733Mhz.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)