Let's be honest. We're all thinking it.

The 360 looks like crap. I'm not paying

I was thinking that...

I beg to differ. Microsoft already has a huge line-up in games. They've gained series like the Resident Evil series onto the console. Something Nintendo may not have, that Sony does have. The 360 is going to be the 2nd cheapest in comparison of price. It's graphics are the Sh*t, the controller is really awesome and $400 with everything that it includes is a steal.

So Perfect Dark, Morrowind, Call of Duty, and Dead or Alive are okish? I think not. Those games were better than Mediocre game. As for Halo being over-rated, probably not as much as you think. Halo became over-rated because it was a great game. More of the 1st one than the 2nd one. There are still a couple million people who probably play this game. If you went onto Live to play it, there are tons of people on there. It's crazy really..

This is what I look forward to from the 360 Gamewise
Kameo
Perfect Dark Zero
Halo 3
Gundam
Resident Evil 5
Dead Rising
Call of Duty 2
Oblivion
Final Fantasy XI
Gears of War
PGR 3
Lost Odyssey
Blue Dragon
Enchant Arm

and many more. The Majority of those games aren't sequels and probably better than most people think. As of right now no one can really complain and say how good or how bad it is. It's not, nor will it be out for another 23 days. I've gotten the chance to play it. The controller is far superior to that of any other controller i've ever used. The Graphics are obviously improved and the gameplay on some games rock. I'm a little anxious to get my hands on this piece of equipment.

Honestly, no, the Xbox 360 doesn't look to be crap. None of the systems look to be crap. Everyting has its promises. The 360 promises to give us the multiplayer gaming on Live, and more than likely the most powerful system. The Revolution promises to give us some unique gaming experiences with the equally unique controller. The PS3 promises to continue giving us the best games.

PS3.. Best Games? I personally thought the PS1 was great and had a ton of Great Games. However I can only think of 1 great game the PS3 had as an exclusive where I can name more for both the xbox and gamecube.

All it has is Perfect Dark. I don't buy systems for one game.

[QUOTE=SomebodyRandom]I beg to differ. Microsoft already has a huge line-up in games. They've gained series like the Resident Evil series onto the console. Something Nintendo may not have, that Sony does have. The 360 is going to be the 2nd cheapest in comparison of price. It's graphics are the Sh*t, the controller is really awesome and $400 with everything that it includes is a steal.

I really don't think the graphics are all that mazing. Sure they are better than current systems but I'm a guy who finds it easier to see bad graphics than good. And graphics aren't the reason I play games. The controller is exactly the same. That's not awesome. It's fine.

[quote]So Perfect Dark, Morrowind, Call of Duty, and Dead or Alive are okish? I think not. Those games were better than Mediocre game. As for Halo being over-rated, probably not as much as you think.
I personally didn't like the first Perfect Dark as much as other people and the sequel isn't doing anything for me. But like I said before they are all sequels. Call of Duty is just higher oin quality than the Medal of Honor series so I can't see why everyone is creaming their pants over the sequel.

[quote]Halo became over-rated because it was a great game. More of the 1st one than the 2nd one. There are still a couple million people who probably play this game. If you went onto Live to play it, there are tons of people on there. It's crazy really..
Halo became over-rated because its crap, but people say its good. The LIve option to Halo 2 I think was the downfall of the game. The mulitplayer isnt all that and being pitted against 13 year olds wtih voices like chipmunks on helium isnt going to make me pay

For a CONSOLE first person shooter, Halo was great. Most consolt players agree on this. However, I've found that all console shooters are terrible compared to good PC shooters (with the possible exception of future DS games). This may be why there is some misunderstanding there.

Consoles have become money machines nowadays, as the differences between new consoles and the generation before have become less and less. Nowhere is this more appearent than the XBox 360, as it is almost exactly like the original XBox except for a few minor graphic and storage changes. Soon, the companies will realize that they cannot go any farther graphics-wise, and could resort to extreme measures such as shutting down your console over the internet when a new one comes out, forcing you to buy the newer one.

But heck, if you have $400 lying around, go ahead, buy one. And, uh, get one for me too, okay? :)

Not getting it unless Rare decides to release a new Banjo Kazooie.

Gonna agree with Neg on this one. Goldeneye and BK/BT were the best games Rare ever put out.

[quote=GameMiestro]For a CONSOLE first person shooter, Halo was great. Most consolt players agree on this. However, I've found that all console shooters are terrible compared to good PC shooters (with the possible exception of future DS games). This may be why there is some misunderstanding there.

Consoles have become money machines nowadays, as the differences between new consoles and the generation before have become less and less. Nowhere is this more appearent than the XBox 360, as it is almost exactly like the original XBox except for a few minor graphic and storage changes. Soon, the companies will realize that they cannot go any farther graphics-wise, and could resort to extreme measures such as shutting down your console over the internet when a new one comes out, forcing you to buy the newer one.

But heck, if you have $400 lying around, go ahead, buy one. And, uh, get one for me too, okay? :)

Get out, Halo was dogs[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it. Worst single player in existance and the most 1 dimensional multiplayer I've ever played.

Rare have been so absent lately, I feel as though I've lost much of my interest in them. Though I do get excited when I think about a new Perfect Dark game. Not sure if it will be enough to win me over, but it might possibly have what it takes. A new adventure with Morrowind sounds attractive, too.

Honestly though, I've been putting more thought into the next Nintendo system instead of the new XBox. I suppose with XBox I will pull the wait and see routine. I didn't get into the original Xbox when it first arrived, but waited until a game like Morrowind came around.

I don't know dudes. To me the battle of 360 and PS3 is a serious toss up. whats really new in either of them? they are almost equal in power and graphics, xbox's controller is better, xbox itself looks better (IMO), and online play is better on the xbox. However launch titles for PS3 are alot better and thats what really matters, the games. So for now im kinda thinking it.

Still getting a revolution.

What launch titles?

Actually, I didnt mean launch titles I meant exclusive titles. or thats what I mean now anyways, haha....ha

most overrated, but still crap, series that is Halo. man you buggin'

[quote=Speedfreak]Get out, Halo was dogs[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it. Worst single player in existance and the most 1 dimensional multiplayer I've ever played.

I know that. Halo was a poor game. However, it was good for a console shooter (which are all poor anyways).

[quote=GameMiestro]I know that. Halo was a poor game. However, it was good for a console shooter (which are all poor anyways).

Perfect Dark and Goldeneye are great games, you get the hell out of my house.

Perfect Dark and Goldeneye are still Great games, but the 1st Halo really changed FPS's probably forever. Goldeneye and Perfect Dark opened doors for more popular FPS's but Halo 1 took the mountain. Halo 2 wasn't bad but it's not as good as Halo 1.

If you want.. i'll leave your house too :-P *puts on shoes*

Goldeneye was and still is far superior than Halo, Halo 2 and any other Halo that will ever come out.

Revolution ftw.

Xbox seems like a huge waste of time to me. The graphics seem poo, and so do the games. I litteraly havent seen one game for Xbox that has made me want to get the system. Not to mention that the thing is huge.

Ideally, I'd want all the systems, including the 360. But, since I'm broke I'll probably end up getting only one, which will most likely be the PS3. The new X Box really doesn't seem all that bad to me though. Maybe because I never got the original, it won't bother me that it's so closely related.

I'm so sick of Halo. All it did was make FPs popular on console, which is just retarded. A mouse and keyboard is an infinitely better configuration.

As a quick side note, you'll notice that for its pc release, Halo got no love. Why? Becuase it was subpar when placed next to the other titles in the genre. The only thing that made peoplesoil themselves over it was the fact that tehy could play it on Xbox. Its a dearth of a game, and I feel sorry for anyone who prefers it over anything.

GAMES SUCK!? HAVE U TRIED ANY XBOX OR XBOX360 GAMES!? This is all Biased opinions and i'm getting rather sick of it. YOU CANT SAY XBOX360 GAMES SUCK WHEN U HAVENT PLAYED THEM. OMFG I feel like i'm in a room with a bunch of retards. All of you stfu and stop being so G*d **** biased. You can't judge games before their out. I could yack all day about how Twilight Princess could suck, and all you buffoons would argue that you can't judge a game before I play it. And yet your doing it yourselves. You really should be ashamed.

Tsk Tsk... Your judging a book by it's cover *sigh*

I think it's time to open up a can of whoop ***.

Seriously people.. You guys are judging way too early.

Halo is a Great Game. Most people who say they don't like it, probably haven't tried it, aren't into shooters to begin with, or are so unfreaking biased it's not even funny.

Nobody can Judge this war before it happens! You can analyse and predict but you can't possibly know. I could make my stand and say the Revolution will be nothing, and fight my point, and you guys would get all jumpy and upset. But really your doing it yourself. G0d why do I come to this fricken forums anymore? it's really gone downhill..

I would rather buy a PS3.

I liked halo. Granted, Halo 2's story was pretty horrible, at least compared to what we were expecting, but the multiplayer is still really fun.

I look forward to playing FPS's on the revolution, though. It seems lots of people like the controller's idea - someone I was talking to who's a big X-box supporter said he was getting a Rev as well as a 360 because of the controller.

Christ the bias is strong here. Look at this picture of Kameo on Xbox: [URL="http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images/2003/screen0/516505_20030916_screen008.jpg"]Kameo Xbox Version[/URL]
Then, look at the 360 version:
[URL="http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images/2005/276/516505_20051004_screen003.jpg"]Kameo Xbox 360 Version.[/URL]

Next up, look at Perfect Dark Zero:
[URL="http://media.xboxyde.com/gallery/public/2061/771_0007.jpg"]Perfect Dark Zero Image.[/URL]
Now give me one Xbox screen that looks just as good as all of that right there, and I bet you won't be able to find one.

The problem has no longer become how small the changes between consoles are, but how they could have and will have to improve on what they have. I for one was fairly dissapointed that graphics forr these games still do not look realistic. I want characters in console games to look like people, even if its just in cutscenes. Warcraft 3 characters look like real, breathing humans. There is yet to be any screenshots for any console that shows characters that look even remotely realistic.

This doesn't mean they have to make characters look life like. However, I would like it if the consoles had the capability to do so.

[QUOTE=Drewboy64][IMG]http://xboxmedia.ign.com/xbox/image/article/571/571605/halo-2-20041207070554046.jpg[/IMG]

Fail.

Sorry, Drewboy, but that was beyond pathetic.

Well...

The Xbox 360 itself looks like a waste of money. There are a few good games coming out on it though, so I will end up buying it.

But yeah, the games on the system has nothing to do with the system itself (aside from fancy graphics). Too bad these games couldn't just come out on Xbox.

Hey, I'm not saying the graphics are equal, I'm just saying the 360's graphics aren't mind blowing. And also rev's graphics are probably gonna be in par with the 360's. The gamecube's graphics were [URL="http://media.cube.ign.com/media/682/682919/imgs_1.html"]amazing[/URL], and if the Rev is a few times more powerful, then it will look good.

I think it's awesome that everybody who hates Halo so much can't shut their fu[COLOR=white]c[/COLOR]king mouths about it. Ever wonder why it gets so much attention? There you go. Also, PD and Goldeneye were exceptional games, for their time. Now they're sub-par games, at best.

Yeah, so, I sure do look forward to buying the Xbox 360.

I'm picking one up purely for the reason that it is going to be the simplest to hack, being the first generation of the system.

I'll also be happy when games start using all three processors instead of only one.

I'm glad we finally broke in some unbiased opinions in here. I thought I was going to have to explode and shoot myself in the face or something.

I don't want to hear anymore biased Sh*t about games or graphics when the games aren't out, and the Graphics are superior to those of the Xbox which has the best graphics or up to par graphics of any other console out there right now.

All games use all 3 in some way, just not that well.

[quote=Seres Aran]You do have a point I guess. But you know, the Gamecube's graphics were awesome too.

And in quite a few ways better than Xbox.

I find it difficult to simplify graphics according to systems when it varies so much from game to game. I've seen some horribly and pleasantly graphicized games on both XBox and Game Cube. I could never decide which system I thought had the best graphics, only what games did. Most of the games that I found had gorgeous graphics happened to be on Game Cube, but I think XBox was capable of pulling it off.

I also find that there are numerous elements of a system and its games that are more significant than the quality of the graphics. Of course, this is coming from someone who still buys and plays NES games.

You're referring to art direction. It's pretty easy to decide which has the best graphics from a technical standpoint.

You and your robot ways.

I should get more technical though. Could you give me the general gist of it? I'm interesting in edifying myself in this department.

Gamecube was definately capable of great graphics. But as we all [should] know, gameplay is the top factor.

I still want an explanation on how, technically, the Game Cube has better graphics than the XBox.

What Halo did was give the console a FPS that everyone was looking for.

It is easy to see the impact Halo had on the genre and on the XBox. I could list numerous influences. For one thing, it has become the game that many FPS games are now compared to.

Fei-on's take on the matter:

I won't be buying it upon launch because I've seen no games worth buying, in my estimation. If at some point a few really great games are released, I'll pick it up then.

I still don't own an X-box merely because they haven't released any games that are worth buying a whole new system for. Halo is good, Fable is good... But not worth buying a whole new freaking system. I'll just play them at friends' houses.

[quote=Pit]Oh I find it so funny that everyone here complaining about graphics are the same people in other threads that say "graphics don't make a game". That's funny.

I've said many times that graphics often make a game. However, the graphics of the XBox 360 have yet to impress me.

Graphics can contribute to a game, but gameplay is a major factor; proof of that is all the past generation systems. I mean, Metal Slug on the X-box wasn't 3-d, but it was a hell of a lot of fun.
And I, being someone who says Gameplay is the top factor, didn't say X-box 360's graphics were bad. If I did, then I'd be a hypocrit to say that the Rev's were gonna be good. I'm just saying they don't impress me a lot; they're not breathtaking.

it contributes to the gameplay in some cases, but it dfoesnt have to; for example, Smash Brothers 64 was amazing, and even though Smash bros melee had unbelievable graphics, it hardly really cahnged the true gameplay.

Look, I'm not going to argue this, but why's everyone so afraid of graphics? Personally, I'd LOVE to see beautiful, realstic/cel-shaded/whatever graphics. I just can't understand what people have against them.

They are a huge part of every game. It's what you see first, it's what you actually SEE.

Yeah, I loved SNES games and whatever, but I'm not going to shun pretty graphics just because... well, for no reason. It just doesn't make sense to me.

It does though. Before it wasn't much of anything. Sure there were a couple great FPS's but they didn't bring the mainstream in. They were great FPS's like I said, however Halo brought in a new FPS with what seems to be rather perfect handling. The multiplayer aspect of the game was far greater than that of Goldeneye or Perfect Dark. You could have up to more than 4 players and the maps were huge and well developed. It truly did change the genre and gave it more respect.

Trust me on this one.. It's only the best selling console FPS ever. If it wasn't that great, nobody would have bought into it.

Halo gave the console FPS genre controls that could AT LEAST compare to a mouse and keyboard. Of course, Goldeneye had good controls, but Halo was just about the only FPS that could even come close to rivalling a game on the PC.

[quote=Seres Aran]I'm not trying to start anythig, Miestro, but how? How do graphics make a game? Don't take it too seriously, it's just a friendly question. I'd just like to know your views on games, because I personally think that storyline and gameplay make a game... of course... that's just me...
My defenitition of something "making a game" is something that makes a game sell. Anyone who thinks that there isn't games that have sold well that have terrible gameplay and great graphics should get out more often.
Should graphics make a game? No.
Do they? In many cases, yes.

Gameplay, in my opinion, is always more important than the graphics of a game. However, the XBox 360 has shown it has very little to offer in the way of gameplay, so, I'm wondering if it can (almost) make up for this with incredible graphics. Be realistic, mate.

Once again, I'm not guaranteeing this, I have never actually played on the console. However, I have heard from many people who have played it, so answer me this- what fantastic or new types of gameplay can you do on the XBox 360 that you can't already do on the XBox?

[quote=Drewboy64]Well, there are racers, FPS's, Sports games and... Wait... nevermind.
RPGs (Elder Scrolls IV), Flying (World Airforce), Puzzle (Marble Blast Ultra), Platformer (Sonic The Hedgehog), Survival Horror (Resident Evil 5) and... wait, nevermind.

Stop being so freakin' literal, it's a well known fact that the Xboxes major games are commonly FPSs, Racers, Sports and western RPGs.

There seems to be a problem. I work in Game retailing as i'm sure i've told you guys 9,881 times already. The problem being, we're only getting in 30 Xbox 360's at EB games and 15 Xbox360's at Kmart for launch. It seems to be a rather large problem seeing that we have hundreds of people lined up that have them pre ordered. there will be a lot of unhappy customers..

That's kinda different, considering "kiddy" isn't really a genre, it's a perception. Granted, though, I do think all 3 consoles have their specialised genres. Personally, I think GC has the most even spread, mainly due to Nintendo making just about everything.

It's not a criticism of Xbox in that all consoles are the same way. The criticism comes from the fact that Xbox's specialities happen to be the genres with the least innovation. Racing games, FPSs and sports games are nowhere near as diverse as most other genres. They're pretty much basic alterations on the same general concept. Funnily enough, the FPSs with the greatest amount of innovation this generation (as far as just that single genre is concerned) were Metroid Prime or Geist; Gamecube exclusives.

Except Giest was a pretty poor game... :(

[quote=Vampiro]... neither were FPS's.

I honestly can't work out what part of my post that's replying to.

I disagree with the idea that genres are so rigidly defined anyway. 30 years ago, Metroid Prime would've been called a "shooting game", that's it. Genres were made up to give a rough desctiption of the game, not to put them in little groups.

No matter what way you look at it, Metroid Prime is set in the 3rd person and there are heavy amounts of shooting involved. The fact that the game doesn't revolve around shooting is totally irrelevent, neither did Goldeneye or Perfect Dark.

[quote=Pit]Yes, but Goldeneye revolved more on tasks from level point A to B, picking up weapons and ammo as you go along... and how wasn't Goldeneye based around shooting people? That was like the whole point of it. You see an enemy, kill him, more ammo, alarm sounds, now people come and you gotta kill them all.

You weren't strapped to one environment. Your charcter didn't physically get stronger. You didn't have to do puzzles. There wasn't a lock on which are usually in adventure games. There's hardly anything similar in an FPS to Metroid Prime except the fact that they're BOTH in a first person view.

Goldeneye was more about completing certain objectives, not just getting from A to B. The people you shoot were an obstacle to completing those objectives.
In the majority of FPSs, the objective is most often getting from A to B with things that shoot you being the objective, like Halo and Half Life.
In Metroid the objective is to aquire abilities through exploration and overcoming obstacles. What is a major obstacle? You guess it, the enemies that you shoot.
The fact that Metroid also has things like puzzles and non-linear ganeplay is pretty irrelevent, considering most games have their own features anyway.

You have to realise that I think of genres as something different to you. When I say "Metroid is an FPS" I don't mean "Metroid is pretty much like Halo", I mean "Metroid has a few similar properties to other FPSs". Which it does. It could even scale it back and call Metroid just a shoot'em up, which would be correct. You shoot things in Metroid as a major element of the gameplay, and by that I'd mean that on a very basic level, it even has something in common with R-Type. A genre, to me, is just a description. The more specific the genre name gets, the more specific the kind of game you're talking about. I just don't think "First Person Shooter" is a description specific enough to exclude Metroid. After all, it is a game with heavy shooting elements set in the first person, it's met the requirement.

In reality, pretty much every game fits into it's own genre when you just keep making them more specific, but I just don't see the point in that. What I'm trying to say is you should take them a lot less seriously. Don't judge a game based on it's genre, and don't judge a genre based on the majority of it's games.

Ummm... you can like beat Metroid using minimal shooting, finding alternative paths, just like any other Metroid game.

Yes, some tasks are shooting enemies as an obstable. There's also puzzle tasks (morph ball goes into certain spot, changing what the room looks like to get through, etc.). Platforming tasks... it's hardly an FPS. I mean, even the control scheme doesn't fit an FPS. One joysticking for moving, one you hit L, character locks into place, there's a lock on feature, the jumping seems natural to platforming.

Yes, you can't deny the fact that it's still in First Person View and it's a Shooter, but it's more of an adventure game than anything. When I hear First Person Shooter, I think CS, Halo, Goldeneye. Each games use similar control methods, pretty much have the same objectives (multiplayer and non), and are linear in that way. So when people go compare games like Metroid and Halo, it's just stupid. The control schemes are totally different and the point of the games are totally different. That's my arguement, really.

We can clearly see the difference between the two in a comparison between Metroid Prime, where you have an open environment and you have to figure out where to go, and Metroid Prime: Hunters, where you have to bash through a seemingly endless stream of enemies to get from point A to point B. They both have their good and bad aspects, and I have no preference over either.

You can't compare Metroid with FPS's, no. Although the new Metroid for DS would be more like an FPS. I like Halo and Metroid. How does this have to do with the topic? I don't know.

You can get through a crapload of Goldeneye without shooting people. Hell, half the time that's what you have to do to save time and earn those cheats. Is it still an FPS? You bet it is.

I find it weird that you cling to the idea that there's more to being an FPS than just being a shooting game in the first person. There isn't, thats why it's called an "FPS". Because that's all there is to it. It's not called "First Person Shooter And Absolutely Nothing Else", is it? I'll say it again, genres are merely descriptions, adjectives.

Imagine if you couldn't call sweet and sour chicken "sweet and sour" because most other things that are "sweet and sour" are candy, and because chicken isn't candy you have to give it another name. That's your arguement.

There's definately a misconeption here that if I call Metroid an FPS then I'm saying that all there is to the game is shooting in the first person. Um, hello? That applies to how many FPSs? Half Life has puzzles, Perfect Dark has objectives, Halo has driving, they're still FPSs. All of which focus on shooting at different levels. Perfect Dark not so much as Halo. Metroid definately relies on it less than most, but it's still there, it's still a major part of the gameplay and it's impossible to progress without it.

Take a look at the original Metroid. Is it a platformer? Yup. Is it a shooting game? Yup. It's both, the two are not mutually exclusive.
Back to Prime. Is it an adventure game? Yup. Is it an FPS? Yup. Prime is also both of these.
What about Half Life? Is it an FPS and an adventure game like Prime? Sure it is, it shares many common elements. That doesn't mean to say they're both the same blood thing now does it? Halo is also an FPS, but it's totally different to both Half Life and Metroid. So why the hell is Metroid an exception?

The point is, Metroid Prime is way more of an action/adventure than it is a shooter. THAT'S my argument. You don't play Metroid to JUST shoot, you play it for the puzzles and the environments. Unlike Halo, where, yes, there is more than just shooting, but that's the reason you play it.

Look, obviously I'm not going to sway your opinion, and you won't sway mine. But when the actual developer refuses to call it an FPS, but instead an FPA, then hey, they're probably more right than you. And they are.

I don't want to continue to argue this, as I feel like I'm repeating myself, and I know you're repeating yourself. So, it's up to you if you want to end it.

Okay, yeah, Halo has some puzzles. Press the switch, aren't that deep. And the driving? Okay, driving with a vehicle that has guns attached to it in which the process you're still shooting.

Prime is more of an adventure game than a shooting game. That's it. Yes, it's in first person view, and yes, it has shooting elements. Thing is, it doesn't play like Half Life, doesn't play like Halo, doesn't play like Goldeneye or Perfect Dark, it's completely different. It plays like an adventure game, whereas all the other titles you listed play like shooting games.

[quote][FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#90ee90]There's definately a misconeption here that if I call Metroid an FPS then I'm saying that all there is to the game is shooting in the first person.[/COLOR][/FONT]

See what you did there? Totally ignored that.

I'll say it REALLY clear so you don't miss it this time.

GENRES ARE MERELY DESCRIPTIONS, ADJECTIVES. YOU USE THEM TO DESCRIBE A GAME TO SOMEONE IN A SHORT SPACE OF TIME.

What you guys are saying it, basically, I can't say an orange is a round object because it doesn't act like a lot of other round objects used in sports. So because an orange isn't like footballs, tennis balls or whatever, I have to call it a round fruit. A ROUND FRUIT IS STILL A ROUND OBJECT. "ROUND OBJECT" IS A DESCRIPTION.

Yes, Metroid is an FPS, but it still can't be compared to Halo. I mean, They're still totally different. Metroid has more of a focus on single player and Halo has a slightly more focus, or at least it seems so, on multiplayer. Halo is less of an adventure game. You just can't compare them, and that's the only thing they're talking about from what I've read.

[quote=Vampiro]HEY, FIRST PERSON ADVENTURE IS A DISRIPTION/AJECTIVE I CAN USE TO DESCRIBE A GAME TO SOMEONE IN A SHORT SPACE OF TIME.

Who would have thought? And not only that, it sums up Metroid Prime better than FPS does.

Go figure?



And I didn't ignore that. See:

I'm not the one saying certain adjectives are innappropriate for Metroid here, you are. I agree that First Person Adventure better sums up Prime than FPS, but I think FPS can still be used to describe it. Just as I think "Action" can describe Super Mario Bros, but "platformer" is better.

Oh bloody hell. NO. My entire point was I thought people should take genres less seriously! I've been saying that it's not out of the question to call it an FPS seeing as "FPS" is bloody vague anyway. I just get annoyed when people refer to it as an FPS and a bunch of other people rip their head off for it, saying "IT'S AN FPA YOU GITS". The game's in first person and you shoot, it's met all the requirements to be an FPS, it's completely undebatable. Whether that's the best description of the game is another story altogether.

Wouldn't it make more sense to call it by what best defines what Metroid Prime is, what genre it actually belongs to? It's not like it takes that much more effort. There's only two more letters to type out. Not that difficult.

The point is, Metroid Prime is an FPA. Since, by your logic you could say Mario is a brawler because you walk around and kill enemies. It's met all of the requirements of a brawler, so why bother actually calling it by the genre it belongs to? It's alright if we're wrong, just as long as we're half right!

Seriously, is that that big of a deal to type an A instead of a S, especially when the A is more correct?

[quote=Vampiro]Wouldn't it make more sense to call it by what best defines what Metroid Prime is, what genre it actually belongs to? It's not like it takes that much more effort. There's only two more letters to type out. Not that difficult.

The point is, Metroid Prime is an FPA. Since, by your logic you could say Mario is a brawler because you walk around and kill enemies. It's met all of the requirements of a brawler, so why bother actually calling it by the genre it belongs to? It's alright if we're wrong, just as long as we're half right!

Seriously, is that that big of a deal to type an A instead of a S, especially when the A is more correct?

Define "brawler". To me that's an insanely vague term that could fit just about any game.

You're missing my point here. I'm the one saying it's not a big deal whatever you call it. Metroid is an action game. Metroid is a First Person Shooter. Metroid is an exploration game. Metroid is a First Person Adventure. Call it whatever the fuck you want, they're all correct. All I'm doing here is waiting for people to jump up and say a certain word isn't applicable to Metroid so I can smack them back down because it so blatently is.

It's an FPA.

Not an FPS.

Because it meets more FPA requirements than it does FPS.

I could really care less if it "fits" into other genres, since just about any game, like music and movies, fits into more genres than just one. However, there's always on it fits best into. So just call it what it is. Especially when it takes no extra effort.

It's not.

*Sigh* As you've said before, you will not be persuaded, and I will respect that. However, I still think that you are partly incorrect. Oh well... this debate could go on forever. We should just come to a conclusion that everyone agrees with.

So Mario isn't an action game, then? Whatever, Vampiro :rolleyes:

Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Heh, I barely even care anymore. As you can tell from my last few points.

My point still stands however ;-*

*Sigh* This is getting nowhere... although Metroid Prime has enough stylistic features to be an FPS, you continue to think otherwise, Vampiro.

Retro and Nintendo have distinctly said the Prime games are not FPS. They say the Prime games are FPA, and what they say, goes.
...
...
It's not very smart of me to jump into an argument I haven't read all the way through, is it?

And how did a thread about the 360 turn into an arguement about genres, anyways?

Funny. On the Nintendo website they call it an action game. OOPS TRY AGAIN.

Look it up on the on the net. Retro has said a few times that it's an FPA. The Nintendo webiste probably call it an action game... because there's action in it. You know, action/adventure?

So why is calling it an action/adventure game right; calling is a First-Person Adventure right; calling it a First Person Adventure With Lots Of Shooty Bits right; but calling it an FPS wrong?

[quote=Speedfreak]So why is calling it an action/adventure game right; calling is a First-Person Adventure right; calling it a First Person Adventure With Lots Of Shooty Bits right; but calling it an FPS wrong?It isn't. Metroid Prime is a first-person shooter adventure.

FUCKING THANK YOU.

First-person adventure with shooter elements.


There's a difference, being that the focus isn't put on the shooter element. It's secondary.

I think I said that already anyways.

Why the heck are you arguing on the FPS side anyways, Seres?! Practically every Metroid fan considers the Prime games FPA and NOT FPS!

The only reason they called Metroid Prime a FPA instead of a FPS is because Nintendo fans feel too elite to be playing a mindless shooter.

Stop ****ing arguing! It's an FPS in some sense, but it is more of an Adventure and Platformer game.

You guys have forgotten what the original arguement was. It wasn't about whether Metroid prime was an FPA or a FPS. It was about whether Metroid Prime is similar enough to Halo to be compared.

[quote]Even then, the games cannot be compared, at all.


We shall end this argument on that note.

So, um... The 360 sucks. Yeah... This thread was about the 360, right?

dude if the 360 sucks then the ps2 and rev suck

Yeah the ps2 probably does suck compare to the 360. ANd I was being half joking, becuase no one before me mentioned the 360 for a while.

And the revolution doesn't suck, it penetrates :)

sure i see ppl mix them up all the time my bad
Ok drewboy that was a good one i have to admit

Typos rock. So, Bright, where do you stand on the fact that the DS is still outselling PSP? Does the PSP still own?

It does for me i enjoy it bttr ppl are diffrent you knw

Ngage>evrythingzzorz

u like the N gage

No, I was kidding. I wish you could tell what I really like by my obviously fake n00b talk and by the two DS pictures that I took in my sig.

yea but i mean u cud still like N gage

well, I don't, and neither does any other living human being. Anyhow, I wish they'd make a game like Oblivion for the Revolution, because that would be fun. I think they should come out with my pressure-sensitive grip idea to make a Starwars game; swinging the lightsabers then force-choking the badguys by squeezing the remote. Sex.

You wanna knw the Halo 2 Multiplayer theme song when i first got on????

The NGage... what is up with that thing? I don't understand it... have they even made games and stuff? I dunno'... it just confuses me...

Yes, I am back!

We cant forget about something we never took the time to familiarize ourselves with.

Well, I think the Revolution may have some of the few good starwars games. I mean, lots of Starwars games are horrible; Attack of the Clones, Jedi Outcast, etc... Ew. And I think the 360 may loose some support or at least get more competition with the Revolution; 360 has lots of FPS's, but the Revolution will have a ton, too. Sports and racers will be amazing with the Revoultion's controls.

[quote=Seres Aran]I haven't been here in like a week! I thought everybody'd forgotten about me! But then again, how can ANYONE forget ME? You know?

Seres Aran... Where does that name sound familiar...