IT'S ABOUT MOTHERFUCKING TIME

[apsham]

Yes, but there's other problems with the X-Box, such as the fucking controller. I must've played the thing about six times, and i'm still not used to the controller. Maybe i'm just stupid, but it's hard, very hard to get used to, that big green jewel in the middle of it is a joke.

The Playstation 2 also has specific titles that aren't available on XBox, and that's why I prefer it also. The onlt game I think i'd play on XBox that I couldn't on PS2 would be the Halo series.

[Herr Matzat]

i don´t know, i might just be the better human being but i never had anny problems with x-box controlers, while the overall size of X-Box in genneral is a problem, because if i wanted to have that thing i just would have no space for it left, i could imagin squeezing a Gamecube somewere around my TV but not that massive X-Box thing.

While i think most people make more of the hugh X-Box controler than they should do i never got why a console that has a fucking several GB big HDD needs 2 hugh memcard slots on the controler.

My Problem with X-Box is that there are absolutly ZERO games that i want to play that arrent comming out for other consoles ore the PC aswell (of cause, a matter of personal tast, but i dame shure won´t pay a shitload of monney for an x-box just for more high end GFX in some games - as you know i don´t belive in high end as qualety faktor i belive in good GFX as qualety faktor, good GFX were already around in NES and especialy SNES days and they still working today)

[Gongsun Zan]

Meh, for the X-Box controller, I use the smaller version, and it works fine with my petite asian hands. Having gotten used to all three controllers, I still hate the PS2 one the most. The new Dual Shock 2 has flimsy analog sticks that keep getting jammed, and cracks at the slightest shock. Which is especially annoying when the Dual Shock 1 is perfectly fine...except it seems that all the new games don't work with that controller. Bah.

And as for GTA, as far as replayability goes, it's completely meh. At first, running around at random was fun, but once the novelty wears off, that's it. At least Vice City had the benefit of the story to push me along, but once that was done (two days later) it just started to get duller and duller. The challenge was non-existant (annoying doesn't count as challenging), and getting 100% was just a matter of performing a couple of repititive (and frustrating) tasks.

Was it fun? For the first week. After that? No.

[apsham]

The Grand Theft Auto series has always kept me entertained. I go thorough periods of getting tired of it, but I always go back to it. I'm not sure why exactly, it's jist if you use your imagination a little, the wandering and collecting can be broken up with breaks of driving around the city and trying out new things. San Andrea's playability looks to be even better.

[tristy]

excuse me, but weren't you the one saying GTA & Manhunt were terrible games because of their content?

[Herr Matzat]

You finished GTA VC in a week ? And i thought i would be gaming to much....

Also, Manhunt = most boring game i ever played, for a good stealth game i´ed get Thief 1 ore 3, Manhunt is just so out of this world boring and just got way to much fame thrue being forbitten half around the world and kids refusing to dislike stuff that is forbiddon because forbidden stuff ist just soooo coooooooooool :blink:

[DMN in the House]

Manhunt was good for a few days, and the novelty, but had nothing else besides wanton killing. Which is all good, of course, but not enough to keep you playing the game.

[apsham]

excuse me, but weren't you the one saying GTA & Manhunt were terrible games because of their content?

←

Maybe you should read things better, I was defending Vice City because it's not pure, one hundred percent violence, unlike Manhunt which is just killing and nothing else. Since the game is just killing it adds different, uneccessary ways to kill. Vice City is a winning formula because it's more than just killing. Manhunt is just... boring. I'm saying the problem with Manhunt is 1\10 morality and then 9/10 gameplay and concept.

[tristy]

Vice City is a winning formula because it's more than just killing.

←

[apsham]

What can you do other than killing in Manhunt? Stare at a wall? In Vice City, you can take on cab missions, play as a vigilante catching dangerous criminals, deliver pizza, or just drive around. In Vice City, you have to further the storyline to get to all the locations, but once you do, you don't have to, to have fun. In Manhunt you kill people. And kill people. And.... yawn.

[SeanDMan]

Crazy Taxi > GTA

That is all.

[Herr Matzat]

uhm, GTA has a fully working Crazy taxi in it

[MDK]

Crazy Taxi had a better soundtrack. Offspring and Bad Religion > Most of the crap on GTA

[SeanDMan]

The driving in Crazy Taxi is better, but since it's the only thing that had to be balanced, that isn't suprising.

I also liked the soundtrack over GTA 3, and not much experience with Vice City, the soundtrack really grated on my nerves.

[Herr Matzat]

you know that the game suports MP3s right ? :blink:

[MDK]

Nope, I didnt. And it wouldnt matter, because I would still be playing Offspring and Bad Religion in GTA

[Guest Captain Foo]

You're right, in all those genres, Sony has the edge.

Now.

If Nintendo begins to market in those genres, it can compete, it got the Resident Evil license, it's clearly not afraid the make mature games, but it really hasn't pushed it to the level Sony has, and have seen numbers fall off as a result.

Marketting sunk and can reinflate Nintendo.

←

[tristy]

someone show me a link to where I can buy Fallout

I looked on Amazon, but there are a ton of games with Fallout in the title.

[SeanDMan]

..And what genre did it not create? You didn't see all of these other games before GTAIII, like True Crime, Mafia, and others. I guarantee if GTAIII had bombed, you wouldn't have seen True Crime, or at least not as soon as you did. Granted, it's not as huge of a genre as others, but you cannot deny that GTAIII did not spawn imitators. A number of games in one style = genre.

DRIVER, hello!

*smacks Captain Foo with a brick*

No, Nintendo does not have the RE license. They had the exclusive for that one game, which was widely seen as a mistake. The RE series is still cross-platform, but the "preferred" one is the PS2. If anything, RE was a PS exclusive back in the day.

That's not what I've heard.

Perhaps it wasn't innovative. Perhaps it didn't change the whole industry. But it did have a very significant impact. How many people do you think bought a PS2 just for GTAIII? Plenty. In addition, how many times has a game been described as "like GTA, but with this" or having a "GTA-like that"? More than I can count, so it must have done something right, don't you think?

Yes.

IT SOLD.

Way to contradict yourself.

I'm saying that if you're saying "so and so isn't an original game because it doesn't create a genre", ie "Fallout isn't an original game because it didn't create the RPG genre", then there are NO ORIGINAL GAMES TODAY. My standard of an original game is giving us something we haven't seen before, EVERYTHING in GTA was done before, they just jammed it all together, and that's not innovation to me. It's just derivative of what had been done before.

Guess what? It had never been offered in that package before. Yes, I could go play Fallout and get my freedom. Then I could go play Driver and get my driving. Then I could go get some porn and my mature content. But the GTA series did offer it. Never having played I or II, I can't really comment. But GTAIII wrapped it all up in a nice, 3D environment. And that was the innovation. This made it appeal to what you said is the dumber audience (console = dumb is a generalization I won't argue). Most of the package could be gotten in Fallout back in 1997. But Rockstar brought it to the masses, in a context that most people could connect to.

I think what this boils down to is that YOU are NOT who the game was designed for.

It doesn't matter that it wasn't marketted to me, that makes no difference. If you think it was innovative you are wrong. If you think it has great replay value you are high. If you think it was a great game, that is opinion and I won't fault you, but how you argue the first two I don't know.