[quote name='Wolfgame']I can understand defending the 360, I never said that there werent alot of great things about the system, I just dont feel that the current games are what can be considered next gen. the only way for a system to get better is to take negative remarks and hope things improve, the 360 is still early in its life span, but at the current state of the console. I dont feel that its all next gen gameing could be.[/quote]Congrats, you have just shown one of the biggest reasons why people think your argument is crap. You say that the system is early in its life, yet you say it's not what it could be. What it COULD be is truely next gen with everything in 1080i, original games that blow all competition out of the water graphically, innovatively, and gameplay-wise..but of course these things have to gradually take place. Your argument states that right now the 360 should be in its prime, where in the past (with every other system) it has shown to take a period of time for a system to go to its peak; and that because of this failure to reach such a high point in its life that the 360 has failed at being "next-gen." With this arguement, one could state that you believe the Xbox, PS2, Gamecube, and every system before it failed in its mission to be groundbreaking or the "next big thing" because they did not hit maximum potential in less than a year of its existence.
[quote name='Wolfgame']going back to my original remark about saints row and dead rising, both of these titles have a few noteable pluses (again in my opinon) I just dont feel that either are games that couldn't have been done on the original xbox, I know im gonna get responses saying that it isnt possible, but it actually is. If the graphics were toned down I could see both titles being completely capable of running on the xbox.[/quote]Again a noteable problem with the arguement. "If the graphics were tuned down.." Do you really believe that the original Xbox, as good as the games were on that system, could run Dead Rising even with a minor graphical downgrade? What makes you think this? Do you know what sort of processing power the game needs to run, and do you think the Xbox holds this much power? Do you have any knowledge whatsoever behind what goes into the games, or are you merely making an assumption? The same I ask with Saints Row.
[quote name='Wolfgame']but the problem with that statement is that that can hold true with most every game, but if graphics is really that big of a deal (where I feel the industry is declining) then the real emphasis on gameplay tends to suffer, originality is hard to come by in this industry and widely accepted titles that do very little to push it in new directions aren't helping things.[/quote]I can note many experiences in 360 games so far where I have actually said "Wow, that looks real." The backdrop of some of the mountains on Amped 3 look incredibly lifelike, the background, and the look and feel of the bikes in MotoGP '06 are amazing, and I can even recognize places in Project Gotham Racing 3 that I have seen in those cities with my own eyes because they look so real. I also think the idea of "originality" is being used too precisely and too defined. Things like the XBL Vision cam adds new features to games like Uno and Texas Hold'em that pretty much no one would consider original. But answer this, has there been the ability to talk and watch friends while playing with them over the internet and having the ability to see them through a camera ON A CONSOLE? No. In this aspect, the camera truely is original. The same could be said about the MarketPlace and all of its features. I find it hard to believe that the link you provided with non-next gen graphics to bad gameplay actually holds much ground. Just because the game isn't in full HD does not hurt the gameplay, nor does the fact that the game may not be the first of its kind.
[quote name='Wolfgame'] I'm personally not a fan of clone games that have a few noteable difference saints row to grand theft auto. even compareing dead rising to dynasty warriors isnt too far fetched. I've played both games extensivly and this is just my opinon obviously it hasn't been well received but I'm doing my best to explain why I feel this way, since I will agree that this topic is largely pointless if I dont atleast make an attempt to clarify my view, if any of you feel that im wrong feel free to post, a good debate has never hurt a message board.[/quote]Have you played Saints Row? The game, although it maintains the same style and pace of GTA, is very different. In GTA, the city centered around you (the character). Gangs started wars because of you, mobs came after just you, and nothing in the city would change unless you had a finger in it. In Saints Row, you are just a part of the city. Stores have sells, gangs invade on other gangs' (besides yours) turf, people step on each other's toes, and NPC's have lives of their own going on that don't necessarily involve you. Saints Row has an online community, where GTA has nothing. Saints Row centers around customizing your character, his lifestyle, and the city around you, where GTA lets you cut hair, get fat or built, and some tattoos.
you or something?
(
A and Smackdown VS raw 07 and it convinces me to hold out a little longer. I'm just not very impressed so far, especially considering those two titles will soon be multi-platform. And seeing as how the 360's are poorly made, it's only a matter of time before I have to send it in to get fixed. Suddenly the PS3 sounds like it might be a bargain if it doesn't have hardware issues....although it probably will seeing as how the PS2 was made.