Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
XBox (Games)

Past, Present, and Future of the 360 56

Posted by Zonk from the seer-of-seers-prognosticator-of-prognosticators dept.
1up has a piece talking with Peter Moore about the past and future of the Xbox 360. Launch challenges, futures plans, and potential roadblocks are all discussed. From the article: "EGM: You really didn't need a Halo to launch the Xbox 360, did you? PM: No, I don't think we did. It was never really in the plans. Clearly, when you're shipping Halo 2 the year before the launch of a new platform, to expect [developer] Bungie to then immediately move on to a brand-new architecture and bring out a third iteration of a franchise worthy of being one of the greatest franchises in videogame history, it's unreasonable. So, we didn't believe we needed it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Past, Present, and Future of the 360 More

Past, Present, and Future of the 360

Comments Filter:

  • What is so great about Halo? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by why-is-it ( 318134 ) on Thursday January 19, 2006 @01:37PM (#14510820) Homepage Journal
    one of the greatest franchises in videogame history

    I've never played Halo. I don't think I have seen it being played either. Could someone please tell me what is so great about Halo?

    Honestly, I'm not trolling here. What does Halo offer that is different and improved from other platform-based FPS? Is it the weapons? The controls? The plot? The visials? The levels? What does Halo do that makes it so great?

    • Once in a far distant past there exist a shooter for the mac called Marathon. By far the greatest game in history. Now freely available, on many platforms under the projet Aleph one.
    • To me Halo is good because of the story, the humor and the general feel of the games. I was a Marathon player though, so I'm biased.

      Honestly, it is a pretty standard FPS. Not sure why it is as popular as it is.

    • Re:What is so great about Halo? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by iocat ( 572367 ) on Thursday January 19, 2006 @01:52PM (#14510976) Homepage Journal
      No single element of Halo stands out (I'm talking Halo 1 here, not Halo 2), but EVERY single element of Halo is impecably tuned, from control to story to graphics to physics to multiplayer to the interface to the ground textures, etc. So it becomes a sublime experience not because it innovates in any one area (it doesn't), but because it's essentially perfect in many different areas simultaniously.

      Halo 2 was more uneven, but still pretty great.

      • I think iocat is right. I'm not much of a FPS player, but I'm addicted to Halo 2, even though I'm pretty bad at it. If I don't play for a few weeks, I start going through withdrawals. Sometimes when I play other Xbox games online with my friends, and there's something clunky about the UI or gameplay or whatever, I find myself saying, "Oh well, they can't all be like Halo."
    • There really isn't anything about Halo that is more than average for a FPS. So to answer your question...nothing.

      The only reason it was hyped so much was due to the fact that it saved the XBox from becoming a complete failure. I guess a mediocre game like Halo looked fantastic next to the other titles availabe for the XBox at the time.
    • I'm not a fanboy whatsoever but the game was fun due to the following 2 reasons:
      1) The guns and the balance that they bring to the game. The fact that you can have any combination of two weapons presents a constant need to balance which weapons you should use depending on the situation.
      2) The artificial intelligence. Enemies would flank, go around, and waste you.

      etc

    • Halo strengths and weaknesses. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Inoshiro ( 71693 ) on Thursday January 19, 2006 @01:59PM (#14511051) Homepage
      "Is it the weapons?"
      Yes. The weapons are satisfying (especially in Halo 2 with the sword), and you have a realistic amount of them on you (2 max with a half-dozen grenades) when fully loaded.

      The melee combat is not bad also. It's very satisfying to crack skulls.

      "The controls?"
      The controls do allow for fun head-to-head, as well as a good feel in general. You know what you're doing at any time.

      "The plot?"
      The plot is one of the better points; the novelizations are good. The novel that connects Halo 1 and Halo 2's story is well thought out, and enjoyable.

      Bungie made Marathon. They know what they're doing with story.

      "The visials?
      The visuals are about what you'd expect from a Geforce 2.5. Not as good as the new fancy Unreal engine or Half-Life 2, but certainly better everything released up until 2001 simply because the framerate tends to be steadier.

      Most of the stuff I saw out on the PC in 2002/2003 didn't take advantage of bump mapping like Halo 1 did. Halo 2's a bit updated, but you can tell they were pushing the hardware to its limit.

      "The levels?"
      No, Halo's level design is pretty much the biggest pile of crap. The levels are the worst part. If they could get good level design, they would have the best console FPS on their hands.
      • "...and you have a realistic amount of them on you (2 max with a half-dozen grenades) when fully loaded."

        Sorry to nitpick, but I'd say Soldier of Fortune's or Counterstrike's loadout restrictions are a little more realistic. Hell, even Dues Ex is more realistic given the kind of cyborg character you're dealing with. Let me illustrate. Why is it that in Halo, a pistol takes up the same inventory space as a rocket launcher?

        Sure, Halo 2 half-addressed that with dual wielding, but it still was far from re

        • "Why is it that in Halo, a pistol takes up the same inventory space as a rocket launcher?"

          Why is it, in Doom, I can run around with a chainsaw, rocket launcher, pistol, rifle, machine gun, chain gun, plasma rifle, and about 1,300 rounds for all these weapons combined?

          You can pick nits, but it's far more realistic than most games.
          • Because it's a game. As I stated before, arbitrarily restricting weapons in a nonsensical way is just as bad as arbitrarily allowing every weapon in the game on your person simultaneously. Halo is not "far more" realistic than most other FPSs. It just uses a different method of weapon management than past FPSs that has its own flaws just like every other before it. That's it.
        • It's not a simulator, it's a game.
    • I'm primarily a PC gamer and I love PC fps's, but I've also played Halo and I enjoy it as well. I don't prefer one to the other, I enjoy both for their own reasons. Halo is described as a first person shooter, but I would argue that it may be more accurate to call it a first person action game. In PC fps's, reaction time is king. Getting the jump on someone, getting that shot off a few ms earlier, can spell the difference between getting a kill or a death. In Halo, someone can get the jump on me and I
    • I've never played Halo. I don't think I have seen it being played either. Could someone please tell me what is so great about Halo?

      You see, in Halo, you are Master Chief. The big 8ft tall cybernetically and genetically enhanced super warrior (The Alpha Football Player). Your shield (UnderArmour) makes you all but invincible. You run about for most of the game utterly defeating the smaller and weedier Grunts, Jackels (smaller kids, losers, nerds). The occasional big kid or teacher that stands up to you (Elites, Hunters) are still no match for your God given All-American Superiority. You are accompanied and guided by the naked Ai Cortana (Cheerleader girlfriend), and run around assisting your teammates (Marines), and the coach(Keyes) in kicking loser ass. The flood represent your life after high school when former friend and foe alike reject you(flood conversion) and you become powerless in your new circumstances. Defeating them by destroying Halo(your school), represents your rejection of the harm you caused there, and of the scorn you now face. You escape in the Long Sword fighter(your pickup), with girlfriend in tow.

      But it's a good game all the same, but the online play sucks.
    • The thing I liked best about it, was the way it organized online play. You start up a session, and invite your friends to a party. That party can then either play amongst themselves, or combine against/with other parties in larger combat.

      Sounds simple, but these improvements are best realized when they're missing. Case in point, the 360's Call of Duty 2, where online play is a clusterfuck of servers, timeouts and lag. If I want to have a match between a few of my friends in COD2, it's nearly impossibl

      • Halo 2 brought the same level of quality to online play as it did to all the other parts of the game. Someone said above that Halo didn't have any one area that was exceptional, but that EVERYTHING in the game was well done, with Bungie's attention to detail and making sure even the small parts of the experience are well done. Well, I think Halo 2's online play is the exceptional part. I haven't found a single game that has anything close to as good of an online experience. Period. Matchmaking based on
        • Hmm, I was under the impression from what I've read online (having not played the game myself) that PDZ came with a very good online experience.

          I've gotten to the point where I only get games that my small set of friends (erm, "clan" -- can you still use that term if you suck?) are also willing to get, because simply, I ain't got the time to be wasting with sub-par online games. If what you're saying is the case, it looks like PDZ will be taking a lower spot on the prospective list. COD2 has already dis

          • PDZ is missing a LOT of things that I had come to expect after playing Halo.

            You CANNOT play with a team of friends in ranked mode. All ranked team modes require playing with random other people. And considering that 6 out of 8 game modes are team based, that's a serious shortcoming.

            No party system.

            Only 2 teams per game, and your team is always green, and the other team is always red.

            Game types with weapons spawning on the map only allow 5 different weapon types total. Non-weapon items like armor take up
    • I am a very large fan of first person shooters, but as with all genres, many of them fall short of being note worthy.

      Halo had a very large hype around it, so I was rather happy when it came out for the PC.

      Playing through the first 3 levels was the worst experience of my life.

      You move like a piece of clay in low gravity, but the bad guys do not. They very predictably roll away from your grenades, though you're stuck side stepping at a babies crawl away from their attacks. There is a decent amount of weapons

      • You move like a piece of clay in low gravity, but the bad guys do not.

        You can outrun the badguys, so that's not quite accurate.

        Most of the weapons work exactly the same, aside from the major deviations such as sniper riffles. The weapons were not so bad, but were nothing to bother noting.

        That's an absurd claim. The weapons have vewry different roles. There's a rocket launcher, sniper rifle, shotgun for closequarters, a high-powered pistol with scope, a low powered, inaccurate assault rifle for mow

        • I'm not going to bother to continue on about a bad game I played over 2 years ago, but here's just a few points.

          They were scenic with a real sense of being on an abandoned world.

          Sounds proper for an Abondoned World Simulator, but not for a first person shooter. I'm sure it adds to the cinamtics, but it sure didn't add to the fun.

          Considering that he can't move while shooting, it would be fairly trivial to go somewhere else and lob a grenade at him, find some rockets, or just headshot him with a pistol.

          • Sounds proper for an Abondoned World Simulator, but not for a first person shooter. I'm sure it adds to the cinamtics, but it sure didn't add to the fun.

            Depends on what you're after I guess. I liked the atmosphere,t he way you could be wandering round admiring the view one moment, then come across a nice little firefight between some trapped marines and some bloodthirsty Covenant the next. If you want non-stop action, then I can see why it wouldn't appeal. There was more of that in Halo 2, largely becau

  • Clearly, when you're shipping [cool power supplies, fun games] the year before the launch of a new platform, to expect [cool power supply makers, fun games makers] to then immediately move on to a brand-new architecture and bring out a third iteration of [cool power supplies, fun games] worthy of being one of the greatest [cool power supplies, fun games] in videogame history, it's unreasonable.

  • 4 Months On (Score:2, Informative)

    by MBCook ( 132727 )
    I saw numbers somewhere (Kotaku? Gizmodo?) about how many units various consoles had sold 4 months after their launches (which is where we are on the 360).

    The 360 has sold 600k. The DS sold 1,200k. The Dreamcast sold 1,800k.

    Launch numbers aren't great.

    Yeah, this is probably due to shortages. Just something I thought I'd point out as I found it interesting and I figured you guys would too.

    • Funny, the 360 hasn't even hit the 3 month mark yet. Besides, it's hard to compare launch numbers because the 360 did it differently. There were plenty of 360's made for Europe and Japan, and at least Europe is also completely sold out. But the sales numbers that are mentioned don't include there, they only compare in the US. I think I've heard that over 300k have been sold in Europe - this would mean 900k in three months - at least on track to match the DS.

    • The 360 was released November 22. Today is January 19. That's a couple of months short of four.
    • It's only been 2.3 months since the 360 launched. I'm not saying it'll sell 600+k more consoles in the next 1.7 months, but I'm pretty sure, if MS gets their distribution shit together they'll sell quite a few.
  • Before someone starts pondering the past, present, and future of the 360, how about we wait a while (maybe more than 2 months???) so the rest of the bad bugs and whatnot can be discovered. Has the scratched disc problem been fixed? I've heard about several problems so far with the 360, and I haven't heard of too many resolutions. Let it run for a bit before you decide its fate. Can you tell who's going to win the Boston Marathon 5 seconds after the starting pistol? (Ok, maybe you can, that was a bad example
    • Has the scratched disc problem been fixed?
      What? The one triggered by users who re-oriented the console while it was operating? Yeah, I've heard they've fixed that bug, but unfortunately a pre-requisite patch fixing "Egregious User Error" has not yet been released.
  • Greatest Franchises? I don't think two decent FPS's make it Zelda or Sonic.
    • Greatest Franchises? I don't think two decent FPS's make it Zelda or Sonic.

      Yeah, and I don't think a few great 2-d games released over 10 years ago make it a zelda or a mario ;)

  • I have mod points but had to put my opinion out there. I was amazed that Peter was interviewed by them since EGM are Sony and Nintendo fanboys. They are fair and balanced like Fox News. I have all 3 consoles so I don't consider my self a fan boy but it's obvious they hate MS and it shows.

Slashdot Top Deals

To the systems programmer, users and applications serve only to provide a test load.

Close