ShinobiBrown
[10] Knight
That's odd. I certainly would much rather play no game at all rather than waste my time on a shitty one. The only way I could think one would think otherwise is if they had some kind of gaming addiction?
MGS4 on 360?!
- Thread starter WareEaglesDare
- Start date
That's odd. I certainly would much rather play no game at all rather than waste my time on a shitty one. The only way I could think one would think otherwise is if they had some kind of gaming addiction?
TagYouRPregnant
Team Ceddy Bear! ♥
I'm not really much in a hurry on getting MGS. I mean,it would be nice to have it...but I was going to get a PS3 in the long run anyways.
- Thread starter
- #23
WareEaglesDare
[09] Warrior
Yea, I was thinking Tax season. But I only really have two reasons, SC IV and MGS.
Shuyyin
[08] Mercenary
sony has nothing anymore?
to me, at least, it seems as if both systems are pretty much looking about the same with each generation. doing the same things, getting same ports, etc.
So, if mgs4 goes to xbox, where the hell is our halo port? hmm? not that i would want to play it, im sure other people woudl want to.
i know we have a bioshock incoming, and with that we take one from 360. it just seems things are eventually being ported to either system one way or another.
but for those few companies that don't wish to, well, like it was stated before. you don't have one, you don't get to play one. stop crying plzkthx.
hell what next, littlebigplanet ports over to 360? there really aren't too many exclusives anymore.
but when there are, they are amazing games. or at least, hyped to be amazing.
to me, at least, it seems as if both systems are pretty much looking about the same with each generation. doing the same things, getting same ports, etc.
So, if mgs4 goes to xbox, where the hell is our halo port? hmm? not that i would want to play it, im sure other people woudl want to.
i know we have a bioshock incoming, and with that we take one from 360. it just seems things are eventually being ported to either system one way or another.
but for those few companies that don't wish to, well, like it was stated before. you don't have one, you don't get to play one. stop crying plzkthx.
hell what next, littlebigplanet ports over to 360? there really aren't too many exclusives anymore.
but when there are, they are amazing games. or at least, hyped to be amazing.
ah, but a bad game is very different from a bad port of a good game, now isn't it? I agree for games such as fighting games or non story driven shooters or sports games, however this isn't the case with mgs.
Even a bad port of mgs will end up retaining things like plot, fundemental gameplay, cinematic presentation, ect. It's going to be the same game, only it may take a graphical hit, might have worse load times, controls MAY be worse, probably even multiple disks. These, while annoying, are fairly small issues that shouldent hinder my ability to overall enjoy the game.
The only way I can see anyone seeing otherwise is if they're irrational or have the patience and tolerance of a child. ;)
- Thread starter
- #26
WareEaglesDare
[09] Warrior
Heh, I want to hear the view on this subject from the 10 people that want snake to die.
ShinobiBrown
[10] Knight
Sadly I can't say I agree because I'm reminded of the MGS2 port for the Xbox. Half assed ports can ruin a game. The PS3 Orange Box is one perfect example of this. I don't see Metal Gear as an exception mainly because I play games for the gameplay aspect of it, regardless of the game. MGS is no exception for me. I do like the story, however I see a good story as a bonus. I can play a game with good gameplay and a stupid or silly story but not the other way around. When you have youtube, what's the point of playing a game with stupid gameplay and a good story when you can just watch it.
Jlikew00t
[09] Warrior
Uncompressed sound.
The 'cinematic experience' you speak of would actually be severely downgraded.
like I said...none of you know a thing of the industry you're a part of.
You talk in theory, but it's all mostly bullshit. I clicked the last three options BTW. Snake should have died. Fanboys are gay, and no, bite it.
The 'cinematic experience' you speak of would actually be severely downgraded.
like I said...none of you know a thing of the industry you're a part of.
You talk in theory, but it's all mostly bullshit. I clicked the last three options BTW. Snake should have died. Fanboys are gay, and no, bite it.
PhilBond
[09] Warrior
Homophobia on a front page poll. Classy.
This strikes me as sensationalism.
MGS2 on the Xbox DID have some technical issues. It was a fairly poor port. However its not as if it was so bad, that the fundamental experience of the game changed. The graphics were the same, or even arguably SLIGHTLY worse than on the PS2. The loads were longer and there were slight frame rate drops infrequently. Trying to make this into a deal breaker is absurd. The content, the plot, the actual gameplay were all exactly (or so near exactly that its indistinguishable) that if you enjoyed one version of the game, then barring the few extra slight annoyances, you should undoubtedly be able to enjoy the other.
The same thing can be said about the Orange Box on the PS3. Sure, the frame rate drops suck. The extra load time is a pain. These issues dont take away from the fact that all 5 games are phenomenal. These minor annoyances, dont suddenly make HL2 v.1 v.2, and Portal not worth playing. An argument MIGHT be able to be made for TF2 based on lag+frame rate drops = shitty experience, but in my experience, the frame rate drops are not a constant factor. That is, they dont happen enough for it to make the game unplayable. It may get you killed when otherwise you would have lived occasionally, but hey, welcome to the internet.
I hear you about good game play, its an important part of the 'experience' of a major title. For me, its not the end all. I can play a game with poor game play, as long as it has a GREAT story or some other redeeming feature that keeps it 'worth it' to me. However trying to pass off as fact that bad ports completely change the game play of games is just... well, not true, with a few notable exceptions (usually trying to translate a game from console to portable, or from PC to console).
The sound would still be there. It would take a hit, but it beats the silence that i get when i try to play the game on the system i dont own.
Were having a discussion here, you can keep your insults and condescending tone to yourself, thanks.
Common Nomenclature. DEAL WITH IT FAG ;D
i kid i kid.
The situation is unfortunate, but it happens.
But seriously, don't derail this thread with your soapbox.
KingAce
HERMITISM
I bet us PS3 owners wouldn't care about this if we could get 360 exclusives as well.
My question to gamers, everywhere is...
Would the gaming world be better off with two platforms, talking about 360 and Nintendo?
If you look at the way Microsoft is pulling strings, this is very probable.
My question to gamers, everywhere is...
Would the gaming world be better off with two platforms, talking about 360 and Nintendo?
If you look at the way Microsoft is pulling strings, this is very probable.
- Thread starter
- #34
WareEaglesDare
[09] Warrior
Must be a fag.... I mean fanboy... Ha don't take things so seriously.
PhilBond
[09] Warrior
- Moderator
- #36
Malice
Super Moderator
There will never be a Halo on the PS3 because Microsoft owns the rights to it. If Sony held the rights to something or paid to keep titles exclusive to their console, then you wouldn't see them make their way to the X360. Unless one of those two things happen, then companies will put their games on whatever they choose.
I never seen so much fuss over two games that I'm not going to buy (FFXIII and T6) and one game that is already out (MGS4). I could care less what other consoles it comes out on since I already own it. But Sony's not going to pay to keep games exclusive when they are still losing alot of money on each console sale. Third parties will either develop for both consoles or choose one over the other based on preference or pros and cons.
If the PS3 was selling like crazy, this wouldn't be a topic. But with no clear winner and the X360 being a cheaper console, then for a company trying to make money, it makes sense to put games out on both systems to make that money back. It's not like in the previous generations where we had a clear winner and companies mainly developed for that console.
I wouldn't worry so much about games that are developed for a simultaneous console release, but I would worry about ports of games and MGS4 would be a port if Konami decided to put it on there and who knows what the quality of the game will be or if they spend the time optimizing it for the 360.
This notion that the PS3 has nothing now that 2 games are making their way to the 360 is hilarious. How many true exclusive titles are really out there not counting games that either come out simultaneously for the PC or come out later for the other console? And out of those, how many are not complete crap?
I never seen so much fuss over two games that I'm not going to buy (FFXIII and T6) and one game that is already out (MGS4). I could care less what other consoles it comes out on since I already own it. But Sony's not going to pay to keep games exclusive when they are still losing alot of money on each console sale. Third parties will either develop for both consoles or choose one over the other based on preference or pros and cons.
If the PS3 was selling like crazy, this wouldn't be a topic. But with no clear winner and the X360 being a cheaper console, then for a company trying to make money, it makes sense to put games out on both systems to make that money back. It's not like in the previous generations where we had a clear winner and companies mainly developed for that console.
I wouldn't worry so much about games that are developed for a simultaneous console release, but I would worry about ports of games and MGS4 would be a port if Konami decided to put it on there and who knows what the quality of the game will be or if they spend the time optimizing it for the 360.
This notion that the PS3 has nothing now that 2 games are making their way to the 360 is hilarious. How many true exclusive titles are really out there not counting games that either come out simultaneously for the PC or come out later for the other console? And out of those, how many are not complete crap?
DC97
[10] Knight
I want snake to die because he just wont stop living! Let someone else be the hero already.
DivineChaos - they did let someone else be the hero. It was Raiden in MGS2, and everybody cried.
I say that it's indicative of Japan becoming a little less naive about the western video game market. No matter which way you look at it, XBox 360 has "won" this race, with a massive install base and attach rate (the amount of games, on average, that each XBox 360 owner has purchased). It absolutely smashes PS3 out of the park.
Just look at Tekken 6 and FFXIII for evidence. In the past, Namco and Square could be assured that PS2 sales alone would make them profit on the games that they made. Why? Because EVERYONE fucking had one. In Japan, and in the US, and in Europe, and in Australia. It was a largely uncontested battlefield, and yes the original XBox make a slight dent but still the PS2 was just the industry standard for many years.
However, Microsoft pulled some great business moves in buying studios and securing unique exclusive games for their machine, which led to the XBox 360 getting some pulling power. On top of that, they timed it perfectly, allowing the the next generation of games to find their way into the market first, games that wouldn't have worked on the PS2 or XBox (i.e. Oblivion, Dead Rising etc.).
Now you can say "oh, you want MGS4? Well we want Halo" but it certainly doesn't work like that. Microsoft own the IP for Halo, they decide where it does and doesn't go. Even though Bungie could make other games in other genres for other machines now, Halo is Microsoft's baby and the XBox 360's greatest strength.
On the other hand though, MGS is owned wholly by Konami. For the entire previous generation, Sony have beeen quite lucky in the sense that they didn't need to buy loads of studios or franchises because the publishers themselves could easily see that they'll make more money by minimising development costs and publishing solely on the PS2. Sony would make nice deals with them to ensure this happened, and everyone was happy because lots of money was being made.
Except now, all of Sony's buddies are worried because the PS3 install base is a lot smaller than it was projected to be at this stage of it's life. They want to make money, they want to sell lots of games and they can't do that on PS3. They've spent the last three, four years developing these games based on the assumption that there would be a hojillion people with PS3s to play them on. They simply cannot afford to stay loyal to Sony. It would be absolutely ridiculous. Hence, Tekken and Final Fantasy, and potentially now Metal Gear Solid, will have to find their way into gamers' hands some other way- guess which?
So the question we should be asking is - do we want our favourite game developers to continue making money and games? The answer is "I think MSG4 should be ported to XBox 360, thanks."
I say that it's indicative of Japan becoming a little less naive about the western video game market. No matter which way you look at it, XBox 360 has "won" this race, with a massive install base and attach rate (the amount of games, on average, that each XBox 360 owner has purchased). It absolutely smashes PS3 out of the park.
Just look at Tekken 6 and FFXIII for evidence. In the past, Namco and Square could be assured that PS2 sales alone would make them profit on the games that they made. Why? Because EVERYONE fucking had one. In Japan, and in the US, and in Europe, and in Australia. It was a largely uncontested battlefield, and yes the original XBox make a slight dent but still the PS2 was just the industry standard for many years.
However, Microsoft pulled some great business moves in buying studios and securing unique exclusive games for their machine, which led to the XBox 360 getting some pulling power. On top of that, they timed it perfectly, allowing the the next generation of games to find their way into the market first, games that wouldn't have worked on the PS2 or XBox (i.e. Oblivion, Dead Rising etc.).
Now you can say "oh, you want MGS4? Well we want Halo" but it certainly doesn't work like that. Microsoft own the IP for Halo, they decide where it does and doesn't go. Even though Bungie could make other games in other genres for other machines now, Halo is Microsoft's baby and the XBox 360's greatest strength.
On the other hand though, MGS is owned wholly by Konami. For the entire previous generation, Sony have beeen quite lucky in the sense that they didn't need to buy loads of studios or franchises because the publishers themselves could easily see that they'll make more money by minimising development costs and publishing solely on the PS2. Sony would make nice deals with them to ensure this happened, and everyone was happy because lots of money was being made.
Except now, all of Sony's buddies are worried because the PS3 install base is a lot smaller than it was projected to be at this stage of it's life. They want to make money, they want to sell lots of games and they can't do that on PS3. They've spent the last three, four years developing these games based on the assumption that there would be a hojillion people with PS3s to play them on. They simply cannot afford to stay loyal to Sony. It would be absolutely ridiculous. Hence, Tekken and Final Fantasy, and potentially now Metal Gear Solid, will have to find their way into gamers' hands some other way- guess which?
So the question we should be asking is - do we want our favourite game developers to continue making money and games? The answer is "I think MSG4 should be ported to XBox 360, thanks."
Ljkabookie
[09] Warrior
I totally agree with Nerje, in reality I only brought the PS3 over the Xbox for 2 reasons and 2 reasons only:
1) its blueray and it has better graphics (i know this isnt the case for all games, but usually it does)
2) it has god of war
meh to everything else ^^
if they port that to xbox, then id like to say, whatever console displays it in the best graphics with the smoothest gameplay is what ill play it on.
this should be the same as MGS, if you have to play it on like 4 discs and the graphics and gameplay is not as smooth then i say dont support rubbish ripoffs of good games. i cant be bothered looking who said that they would buy it anyway but its losers like you that keep game companies bringing out crap games because you have no standards so they dont either.
gears of war and fable are the only decent games that the xbox has that ps doesnt and my computer plays both games and it looks 100 times better, the new versions of both games will be on pc in no time and once again will look 100 times better than on xbox, this is just confirming my point that i support the platform that has the greatest graphics and gameplay (gears of war played the same if not better and had extra levels in the pc version) not what console has the most games, cause its not really important how many you have, its how good they really are.
if i could get sc4 and games like it on pc then i wouldnt of bothered with either console, as the only other attractive thing about consoles used to be that there was that you never had to install anything, but thats gone out the window to and now they are basically crap pc's that happen to get good games that pc doesnt.
personally i see the new trend of multi platforming as being a fantastic idea, not because i want games to go to xbox but because this seems to be a trend thats happening and sooner or later they will work out that they should port them all to pc.
fanboys will winge and i say go suck it retard and get with the times.
regardless halo is a shit game.
my 2c
1) its blueray and it has better graphics (i know this isnt the case for all games, but usually it does)
2) it has god of war
meh to everything else ^^
if they port that to xbox, then id like to say, whatever console displays it in the best graphics with the smoothest gameplay is what ill play it on.
this should be the same as MGS, if you have to play it on like 4 discs and the graphics and gameplay is not as smooth then i say dont support rubbish ripoffs of good games. i cant be bothered looking who said that they would buy it anyway but its losers like you that keep game companies bringing out crap games because you have no standards so they dont either.
gears of war and fable are the only decent games that the xbox has that ps doesnt and my computer plays both games and it looks 100 times better, the new versions of both games will be on pc in no time and once again will look 100 times better than on xbox, this is just confirming my point that i support the platform that has the greatest graphics and gameplay (gears of war played the same if not better and had extra levels in the pc version) not what console has the most games, cause its not really important how many you have, its how good they really are.
if i could get sc4 and games like it on pc then i wouldnt of bothered with either console, as the only other attractive thing about consoles used to be that there was that you never had to install anything, but thats gone out the window to and now they are basically crap pc's that happen to get good games that pc doesnt.
personally i see the new trend of multi platforming as being a fantastic idea, not because i want games to go to xbox but because this seems to be a trend thats happening and sooner or later they will work out that they should port them all to pc.
fanboys will winge and i say go suck it retard and get with the times.
regardless halo is a shit game.
my 2c
KnightWarrior
[10] Knight
Kojima dosn't want to do it on the 360