What is it about the games for the 360.

[Atari5200]

I noticed something with this generation of gaming and the 360. Almost every game I have, i play non-stop until I beat the game. I cannot say the same thing for any previous generation and I have tons of games i've started and never finished, but once I get into a 360 game, i can't seem to put it down. Except for ChromeHounds, but give me a break, it's ChromeHounds.

 

Anybody else having this same experience?

[Scumdogg]

Yeah, i know what you mean. I've played through most of my 360 games pretty obsessively to the end. I think it's just something about the experience getting more cinematic. Writing improves, graphics improve, it can all add up to a pretty rewarding experience.

Also, Achievements.

[StormSurge]

I agree totally. I'm guessing it's the achievements as well. That or the fact the games are $60 each & I want to get my money's worth.

[Hyper_Eye]

Pretty much all the games I have purchased for the 360 have been great games and require finishing simply because they are that good. Among the three consoles right now the 360 simply has the best games.

[Scumdogg]

I agree totally. I'm guessing it's the achievements as well. That or the fact the games are $60 each & I want to get my money's worth.

 

 

I still don't know what cheap-game laden history people are coming from where $60 is an extravagant amount to pay for a game. SNES games were often $60 or $70, and that's in the currency of a decade ago. I just opened a copy of Donald Duck's Quackshot for the Genesis that still had a receipt for $55 in it. I'd say with the massively inflated budgets and development cycles, $60 for a 10-30 hour game is pretty damn good.

[NE146]

Well.. take a look at my 360 achievement list and you'll see all the games I have (which I think is a lot), and maybe 2% of them finished (most don't even have a single achievement). So you know I'm definitely not in the same boat

 

Although I did have to finish COD4 recently. Just so I can finalize my thoughts on the game....

Edited November 21, 2007 by NE146

[Recycled]

I agree totally. I'm guessing it's the achievements as well. That or the fact the games are $60 each & I want to get my money's worth.

 

 

I still don't know what cheap-game laden history people are coming from where $60 is an extravagant amount to pay for a game. SNES games were often $60 or $70, and that's in the currency of a decade ago. I just opened a copy of Donald Duck's Quackshot for the Genesis that still had a receipt for $55 in it. I'd say with the massively inflated budgets and development cycles, $60 for a 10-30 hour game is pretty damn good.

 

I've never spent that much on a game. I only bought new games back in the early 80s. I'll wait for the price to come down on a new game if I want it. The most I spend today on single games are on homebrews.

[Lord Helmet]

I can say for certain that the 360 is my favorite system since the SNES. I love the thing, and love most of the games I have played for it. Even FPS, which I usually am just kind of ho-hum about.

[moycon]

I'm guessing it's the achievements. The people that aren't obssesive about playing the hell out of the games are the ones that also don't care about achievements. Me...I've been know to play and beat a game twice back to back (Eternal Sonata) even though each playthough takes 30-40 hours, to snag the achievements. This would suck if I wasn't having a blast doing it...but I do, so it's all good! 360 is easily in the top 5 systems of all time for me.

[BydoEmpire]

I guess I'm in the opposite boat, though I normally really try to finish games I buy. I finished Gears of War and that's it. Then again, you can't really "finish" most XBLA titles, which is 75% of my 360 play time. I would probably buy and play more 360 stuff, but my money is spread out amongst too many other consoles.

 

[Edit] Good point about achievements - I don't really care about them. They're fun to get, but it's rare when I go out of my way to unlock one. I've never been a 'completist' or '100%' type of gamer anyways, though.

Edited November 22, 2007 by BydoEmpire

[Gabriel]

Sorry. I don't notice the same trend. I'm completely the opposite and easily distracted by the next game on the release list.

 

I'm going to go off on a tangent now.

 

It used to be that I'd doggedly play whatever my most recent game was. I'd play it for two weeks straight, at the very least. This applied even to absolute crap like Final Fight, Weaponlord, Ravenloft: Iron & Blood, and such. I even played the crap out of Super Mario World when I first got a SNES, because it was the only damn game I had to play. I even played the hell out of abyssmal crap like Starfox 64, because I had paid $70 or $80 for that one and I was damn well going to try and find something, no matter how insignificant, which was good about the game (I never did).

 

Of course, this was dedication to games based on poverty and being unable to go out and get anything better. Not only that, but the selection of games available back then wasn't anywhere near as good as today.

 

It's the Combat Syndrome. Sometimes we play games not because we genuinely like them, but because we're bored and it's the only thing available.

 

Today, it's different. I have disposable income and a wider variety of games to choose from. So, when I get a turkey like Morrowwind, Trauma Center, Crimson Skies, Knights of the Old Republic, Wartech, or something similar, I don't feel the need to justify my purchase, get my money's worth out of it, or find the hidden merit of the game which can only be ascertained through 40 hours of play. I just toss the offending game to the side and pick up a game which is fun and actually worth playing instead. I then play the fun game until I get distracted by some other shiny object.

 

Having much more limited free time than back in the day certain has something to do with it too.

[BydoEmpire]

Of course, this was dedication to games based on poverty and being unable to go out and get anything better. Not only that, but the selection of games available back then wasn't anywhere near as good as today.

That's a good point. I was just talking to someone about this yesterday. When I was younger, I'd get a game and then HAVE to play it through and through because I couldn't afford to get anything else for a while. Now I have a dozen games on the shelf I haven't even opened, let alone played. I really TRY to finish games, but usually the reason I don't is that I get something new and don't go back. There's also so many great games out that if I'm playing something that doesn't really grab me I'm likely to get hooked on something else.

[Scumdogg]

Of course, this was dedication to games based on poverty and being unable to go out and get anything better. Not only that, but the selection of games available back then wasn't anywhere near as good as today.

That's a good point. I was just talking to someone about this yesterday. When I was younger, I'd get a game and then HAVE to play it through and through because I couldn't afford to get anything else for a while. Now I have a dozen games on the shelf I haven't even opened, let alone played. I really TRY to finish games, but usually the reason I don't is that I get something new and don't go back. There's also so many great games out that if I'm playing something that doesn't really grab me I'm likely to get hooked on something else.

 

 

This is the reason i've beaten Fester's Quest, Street Fighter 2010, Mission Impossible, and a dozen other NES games i'd never have the patience for now. If it went on clearance, chances are it was one of about two games a year i got, and i played the hell out of it.

[raindog151]

I even played the hell out of abyssmal crap like Starfox 64, because I had paid $70 or $80 for that one and I was damn well going to try and find something, no matter how insignificant, which was good about the game (I never did).

 

 

It's one thing to not like a game, it's another thing to call it an abyssmal piece of crap, especially one that is generally regarded as not only a great game, but the best in the series.

 

Now if you want to talk about Starfox Adventures...

[+remowilliams]

Anybody else having this same experience?

I've noticed the same thing. The 360 has had an astoundingly high rate of completion of its games for me, even given the fact that I'm pretty easily distracted.

[Atari5200]

well i'm about to put FEAR on the back burner without finishing it, this game is booooorrrrriiinnnngggg.

[Video]

If by finish, you mean I pay to the end, then yeah, i've been doing that a lot lately. As for achievements, I can't really be bothered, if it's not part of the main course to finish the game (or a hell of a game) then that not only won't be persued, but probably never will be completed.

 

I think a lot of it is, well, the games are just good, I mean, come on. The consoles have finely gotten good enough that your not seeing much improvement graphically over the last generation (a lot of my friends are pretty dissappointed in how little the 360 added over the original) but that's in a way a good thing, as now the game programmers are haveing to concentrate more on the story and gameplay. The games are simply better now than they have been being, since the wow factor on the graphics is much less this time around.

 

Of course, it could be the $60 pricetag too, but then again, I useually pay closer to $20 for my games (cause I'm whats known as a 'cheap bastard' lol )

 

But seriously, back in the day, the only reason I completed a game, was useually due to the fact I didn't get many, I got 2 or 3 a year (if I was lucky) and those were useually the worse bargin games. And now, heck, I get 2 or 3 a month (and I need to stop, cause the pile of unopened games is getting to big to manage)

[+remowilliams]

The consoles have finely gotten good enough that your not seeing much improvement graphically over the last generation (a lot of my friends are pretty dissappointed in how little the 360 added over the original)

No matter how many times I see that sentiment, I really don't get it. The 360 and PS3 are huge improvements graphically over their predecessors.

[moycon]

The consoles have finely gotten good enough that your not seeing much improvement graphically over the last generation (a lot of my friends are pretty dissappointed in how little the 360 added over the original)

No matter how many times I see that sentiment, I really don't get it. The 360 and PS3 are huge improvements graphically over their predecessors.

 

I agree, I go back and play PS2 games now and it's hard to believe how crappy and jaggy they look to me. I saw Lego Star Wars for the PS2 on display at Best Buys shortly after completing the game on 360, and I was like...What the hell, why does that look so crappy, then I saw what system it was on. There really is a big difference to me.

[Lord Thag]

I agree. I've been completely hooked by damn near every 360 game I've bought. They're all so good. This. my friends, is truly the second great age of gaming.

[NE146]

The consoles have finely gotten good enough that your not seeing much improvement graphically over the last generation (a lot of my friends are pretty dissappointed in how little the 360 added over the original)

No matter how many times I see that sentiment, I really don't get it. The 360 and PS3 are huge improvements graphically over their predecessors.

nah.. the Xbox 360 is the Xbox 1.5. End of story

 

Gone are the days of mind blowing graphical updates on new consoles.. The xbox had good graphics. I still think it does. But now it's pretty much at a point of diminishing returns with incremental improvements in "the details" and that's about it.

 

Anyway, who even knows what "good graphics" means these days.. to some it's more realism. To others maybe something like Okami has good graphics. Basically anything's possible to show at this point and with more power it'll only become more vague what makes graphics good anymore. It'll be an entirely a design choice.

Edited November 28, 2007 by NE146

[MCHufnagel]

Well I can tell the difference. Just connect a last gen system via component and compare it to a Xbox 360 or PS3 connected via component on the same set. The last gen games are pretty jaggy compared to the current gen games. Even the "ugly" this gen games look as good or better than the "beautiful" last gen games.

 

Next gen will probably see less of an improvement, but you never know.

[StormSurge]

HD gaming is a HUGE jump over the last gen, IMO.

[Scumdogg]

Ask around and i'd bet 90% of the people going "The graphics aren't that much better" are still playing on an old SD set. It's impossible to play on an HDTV and not notice a huge difference, you'd have to be completely blind.

[NE146]

Ask around and i'd bet 90% of the people going "The graphics aren't that much better" are still playing on an old SD set. It's impossible to play on an HDTV and not notice a huge difference, you'd have to be completely blind.

 

I do play the 360 primarily on an old set via composite cables and mono sound. A 13" to be exact.

 

That being said, when I feel like it I take it out to one of the 50" hdtvs.. except those rooms are more public (i.e. primarily used for tv viewing by the wife and familly) and I prefer hanging out in my office where my pc's are. Although tonight I did enjoy a couple of hours just tonight playing COD4 on the hi def downstairs. I'll take the 360 back into the office by tomorrow morning though for more 13" goodness where you can see the entire screen without having to turn your head.

 

Of course there's a difference. But really.. composite is fine & Hi Def is still overrated.