New Microsoft Console

Yeah, just like the PS Vita. I wouldn't have even known about it unless I heard about it on the internet. Even when I knew I still didn't want it and didn't get it either.
 
Hey guys, why don't you stop freaking out. It isn't confirmed, it is a goddamn rumor.

Rumors like this come out every time a new system is announced.
 
Garrus Vakarian said:
Hey guys, why don't you stop freaking out. It isn't confirmed, it is a goddang rumor.

Rumors like this come out every time a new system is announced.

This conversation mostly deals with the hypothetical while some people think this is confirmed. Xpike has stated that it is most likely true. Maybe new rumors appear every time a system is announced, and even if rumors are rumors, I would still be worried about this thing anyway, even if I don't care about the Xbox.
 
Yeah, we've seen, like, 3 or 4 different independent rumours about an always-online XBOX. I, personally, don't really care, considering I'm not going to get one, anyway.

Although, the rumours do seem like a bit of a problem. Game consoles are becoming indistinguishable from new things like Smart TVs. You need to do something that other devices don't do, and social media integration is not going to help that.

As for the always online thing, it's going to make multiplayer a necessity in every new game. What happened to good old single player games?
 
Purple Yoshi said:
As for the always online thing, it's going to make multiplayer a necessity in every new game. What happened to good old single player games?

Not necessarily; there are still some games out there that has required online to play but still has single player campaigns. I'm sure that these games will probably have both multiplayer and single player stuff. I think that's actually the reason many complain about the required online thing: many want to play the single player game without even having to connect to online.
 
Baby Luigi said:
Purple Yoshi said:
As for the always online thing, it's going to make multiplayer a necessity in every new game. What happened to good old single player games?

Not necessarily; there are still some games out there that has required online to play but still has single player campaigns. I'm sure that these games will probably have both multiplayer and single player stuff. I think that's actually the reason many complain about the required online thing: many want to play the single player game without even having to connect to online.

Of course, I get that.

But I hate that previously single-player games now have to have shoehorned multiplayer. Assassin's Creed, God of War, Mass Effect, heck, even Nintendo is guilty of it in Luigi's Mansion.
 
I actually like multiplayer games. If you don't like it too much, you don't really have to use it. I agree that not all games need multiplayer of some sort, but an option is always nice.
 
Meh, I only get Nintendo systems so I don't particularily care, but I hope the Wii U can still shine with the new Xbox and PS4 out, because everyone at my school hated the Wii because "the graphics aren't as good." They apparently haven't played Super Mario Galaxy.
 
Lord Spongeful said:
Meh, I only get Nintendo systems so I don't particularily care, but I hope the Wii U can still shine with the new Xbox and PS4 out, because everyone at my school hated the Wii because "the graphics aren't as good." They apparently haven't played Super Mario Galaxy.
I've played SMG on Wii and MW3 on Xbox,imo Xbox does have better graphics.

Still though, that's not the best of reasons to dislike a console, imo.
 
The technology of a console should not influence whether you like it or not or if you will buy it or not. That's like how someone on youtube complained about how the 3DS uses old touch screen technology or people saying that the Wii U is not a next generation console. WHO ON THIS SPINNING BALL WE CALL EARTH CARES? A game system can have the best touch screen technology, the best graphical capabilities and power. But if the games are crap, there is no reason to buy it.

The "someone" I was referring to is gligar13vids
 
I might end up getting it. I don't have any microsoft products and some games can only be played on the 360 (Tales of Vesperia, Halo 4... Yeah not really much else I'd be interested in.).
 
Lord Spongeful said:
They apparently haven't played Super Mario Galaxy.

Super Mario Galaxy has ----ty graphics, that's probably the reason they know that Xbox and PS have better graphics.
 
Until you see this:

SMG_Banktoad.png


And oatmealy plants
 
Baby Luigi said:
Until you see this:

SMG_Banktoad.png


And oatmealy plants
I always wondered. Are those toads dark skinned (a.k.a brown skinned) or is it just their shadow or shade.
 
It's the shading doing it
 
Off-topic: It's just the shade.

You also have to keep in mind that realistic graphics don't mean better graphics compared to fantasy. What makes graphics good is if the texture quality is good and the models are nicely shaped and animated.
 
La Marionette said:
You also have to keep in mind that realistic graphics don't mean better graphics compared to fantasy. What makes graphics good is if the texture quality is good and the models are nicely shaped and animated.

And in Super Mario Galaxy, it's not good whether it's fantastical or not
 
Graphics rarely matter in a video game. The game can look like crap. If it's fun, then that's what matters.
 
chillv said:
Graphics rarely matter in a video game. The game can look like crap. If it's fun, then that's what matters.

Nope, graphics do matter, especially after you nail the gameplay part of it. I think graphics is part of the difference between what makes a good game and a great game. Sure, the gameplay is the most important aspect of a video game, but good, beautiful graphics really polish the game. Good graphics add a breathtaking feel to the game, and I like to appreciate the beautiful, interesting surroundings as I immerse in the game.

New Super Mario Bros. U, for instance, is a pretty fun game, but the visuals look like crap. The boring art style in that game has contributed my "meh" feeling for this game. Meanwhile, Rayman Origins has downright beautiful visuals and music that has probably set my expectations higher for the next Mario game. Good, beautifully done graphics show how much care and effort game developers have devoted to, while bad graphics show laziness.
 
La Marionette said:
chillv said:
Graphics rarely matter in a video game. The game can look like crap. If it's fun, then that's what matters.

Nope, graphics do matter, especially after you nail the gameplay part of it. I think graphics is part of the difference between what makes a good game and a great game. Sure, the gameplay is the most important aspect of a video game, but good, beautiful graphics really polish the game. Good graphics add a breathtaking feel to the game, and I like to appreciate the beautiful, interesting surroundings as I immerse in the game.

New Super Mario Bros. U, for instance, is a pretty fun game, but the visuals look like crap. The boring art style in that game has contributed my "meh" feeling for this game. Meanwhile, Rayman Origins has downright beautiful visuals and music that has probably set my expectations higher for the next Mario game. Good, beautifully done graphics show how much care and effort game developers have devoted to, while bad graphics show laziness.
I was only exaggerating. Graphics do play a part in a games quality and they should be made to the best of the artist's ability. However, it shouldn't be the main thing taken to heart during development but, they should at least make them look presentable even in it's beta form. That way, if you show it to E3 or PAX or something, your game will look at least okay.

The early beta version of Super Smash Bros is a good example of what I am talking about.
 
chillv said:
La Marionette said:
chillv said:
Graphics rarely matter in a video game. The game can look like crap. If it's fun, then that's what matters.

Nope, graphics do matter, especially after you nail the gameplay part of it. I think graphics is part of the difference between what makes a good game and a great game. Sure, the gameplay is the most important aspect of a video game, but good, beautiful graphics really polish the game. Good graphics add a breathtaking feel to the game, and I like to appreciate the beautiful, interesting surroundings as I immerse in the game.

New Super Mario Bros. U, for instance, is a pretty fun game, but the visuals look like crap. The boring art style in that game has contributed my "meh" feeling for this game. Meanwhile, Rayman Origins has downright beautiful visuals and music that has probably set my expectations higher for the next Mario game. Good, beautifully done graphics show how much care and effort game developers have devoted to, while bad graphics show laziness.
I was only exaggerating. Graphics do play a part in a games quality and they should be made to the best of the artist's ability. However, it shouldn't be the main thing taken to heart during development but, they should at least make them look presentable even in it's beta form. That way, if you show it to E3 or PAX or something, your game will look at least okay.

The early beta version of Super Smash Bros is a good example of what I am talking about.

In the internet, it is difficult to tell if one if exaggerating or telling one's opinion.

There are a lot of early beta versions of Super Smash Bros. I am not sure which is the one you're thinking of.

Anyway, we're discussing about Xbox and crap.
 
La Marionette said:
chillv said:
La Marionette said:
chillv said:
Graphics rarely matter in a video game. The game can look like crap. If it's fun, then that's what matters.

Nope, graphics do matter, especially after you nail the gameplay part of it. I think graphics is part of the difference between what makes a good game and a great game. Sure, the gameplay is the most important aspect of a video game, but good, beautiful graphics really polish the game. Good graphics add a breathtaking feel to the game, and I like to appreciate the beautiful, interesting surroundings as I immerse in the game.

New Super Mario Bros. U, for instance, is a pretty fun game, but the visuals look like crap. The boring art style in that game has contributed my "meh" feeling for this game. Meanwhile, Rayman Origins has downright beautiful visuals and music that has probably set my expectations higher for the next Mario game. Good, beautifully done graphics show how much care and effort game developers have devoted to, while bad graphics show laziness.
I was only exaggerating. Graphics do play a part in a games quality and they should be made to the best of the artist's ability. However, it shouldn't be the main thing taken to heart during development but, they should at least make them look presentable even in it's beta form. That way, if you show it to E3 or PAX or something, your game will look at least okay.

The early beta version of Super Smash Bros is a good example of what I am talking about.

In the internet, it is difficult to tell if one if exaggerating or telling one's opinion.

There are a lot of early beta versions of Super Smash Bros. I am not sure which is the one you're thinking of.

Anyway, we're discussing about Xbox and crap.
supersmashbeta3.jpg


You can see to the left that the beta version did not have a brick texture across the whole field. However, in the final game it has the brick texture added.

Both versions look presentable for a demo or presentation if they were going to give out one.

Anyway, back on topic. I don't see the need for a new xbox nor a new play station. I know it's so they can keep up with nintendo's wii u but at least it has something new about it which is of course the wii u gamepad. The PS systems are almost identical in design and everything and the XBOX usually is introduces very innovative stuff but with some type of cache. Usually dealing with money. It could simply be about it being way to expensive or something else.

Nintendo Home Consoles (I did not put them in order)
NES
A lightgun and a controller with a d-pad and two buttons.
SNES
Satellite broadcasting(but only to japan)
a controller with four buttons, a d pad, a lightgun with enhanced technology and sudo 3d capabilities.
N64
3D graphics, a controller with many buttons and a four controller slot.
Gamecube
Memory cards, disc media
Wii
Motion Control, A two with a lot of buttons combined bur very simple to use. the ability to download apps and games, miis, wiiconnect24, nintendo wifi connection etc.
DS
Touch screen, dual screen technology, nintendo wifi connection, ds download play.
Gameboy Color
Color (duh)
DSi
The camera, the ability to download apps and games
3DS
3D (duh), motion control, ar technology, circlepad, streetpass.
Wii U
The wii u Gamepad, miiverse, wii u chat etc.

Microsoft
XBOX
Um... IDK (I never owned an XBOX. I only own a XBOX 360)
XBOX 360
XBOX live, achievements, Kinect and some other stuff that have nothing to do with video game

PS
PS1
3d graphics, disc media, the ability to play dvds and cds.
PS2
Eyetoy and a couple of other things I can't remember the name of
PS3
Sony Move (which was really not a good idea since motion control was not really doing well at the time) pressure sensitive buttons.
PS Vita
Muti-touch touchscreen, a touch pad under it, motion control and a whole lot of stuff.

Please do not make any kind of comments on this if I said something in the wrong way grammar wise or anything. I typed this when I was tired last night. (or this night, whatever)
 
Live was actually carried over from the original Xbox, and if I remember correctly the PS1 could only play CDs.
 
Toad Eightyfive said:
Live was actually carried over from the original Xbox, and if I remember correctly the PS1 could only play CDs.
Yeah, I apologize if I misquoted anything about the PS and XBOX systems. I don't own a PS1 or an XBOX but I own a PS2 and XBOX 360.
 
Back