# Xbox versus PS2 for the discerning adult



## Eosin the Red (Feb 6, 2005)

I am looking into buying a console type game but don't know jack about them. Suggestions?

This is for me - middle age fantasy enthusiast.


----------



## Maraxle (Feb 6, 2005)

What kinds of games do you like?  

I've got a PS2 and I probably play it once every two to three months.  My girlfriend plays it more that I do, as she likes DDR.  The most played games I have for it are the DDR ones, Grand Theft Auto: 3 and Vice City (not bothering with San Andreas), and a baseball game.

My friend has an Xbox.  It has Halo/Halo2 and that's about it.  I don't like FPS games, so those don't appeal to me.  Fable (RPG) looks decent, but I haven't tried it.  

Another friend has a Gamecube.  He probably gets the most enjoyment out of his system.  It has Zelda, Mario Kart, etc.


----------



## drothgery (Feb 6, 2005)

Eosin the Red said:
			
		

> I am looking into buying a console type game but don't know jack about them. Suggestions?
> 
> This is for me - middle age fantasy enthusiast.




I'd hold off unless there are a few games you're really exceited about. We're very near the end of the current generation of consoles; Microsoft and Sony will be launching new ones in the next year or two (strong rumor says Xbox 2 this fall and PS3 next fall, but I think Xbox 2 is likely to slip into 2006 for practical reasons -- I don't think they can make the CPU cheaply yet, and there's no way they can have Halo 3 at launch this year).

I really loved KotOR and KotOR II, but if you've got a fairly good PC and like playing games at your desk, that's not an argument for the big black box (me, I'm far more partial to RPGs on consoles).


----------



## GlassJaw (Feb 6, 2005)

As others have said: pick the games, then the console.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Feb 6, 2005)

The XBOX 2 will possibly drop by Q4 this year and the PS2 is slotted for mid next year last time I checked. I would hold off unless you want an obsolete system right out of the box. If you have a load of games you want to play that are already out then that is a different matter I suppose, but I would wait and probably go XBOX2. By the way, Fable is very fun as is the Baldurs Gate series for XBOX. PS2 also does Baldurs Gate and also a Baldurs Gate Engine game set in the Everquest World. But Fable is more fun (IMO) than all of em except maybe the 1st BG for XBOX/PS2.


----------



## RangerWickett (Feb 7, 2005)

I'd recommend you don't play Fable.  It's pretty and fun if you only want to level up and run around Grand Theft Auto: Middle Earth style, but the plot is weak, and the hyped "you can be good or evil" is an illusion.  It doesn't affect the plot at all -- the only difference is how nice NPCs are to you.


----------



## John Crichton (Feb 7, 2005)

Eosin the Red said:
			
		

> I am looking into buying a console type game but don't know jack about them. Suggestions?
> 
> This is for me - middle age fantasy enthusiast.



 Yeah, there will be new consoles coming out soon.  But they typically take anywhere from 4 months to a year to have any kind of decent library of games.   That and this next generation of consoles will be very expensive, as is normal for a launch.  Think a minimun investment of $350 just for the system.  Add in the accessories, tax and a game or 2 and you are easily blowing $500 dollars.

That said, now is a great time to buy one of the 2 consoles!  They are dirt cheap and the libraries are huge.  You'll have a great selection of games.

Here's the breakdown:

The PS2 is unmatched with it's library of games.  Every genre is represented in full force.  RPG, action, driving, adventure, fighting - you name it, they got it.  The downside is the graphics:  they are the worst of the current generation of consoles.  So it comes down to:  what kind of games do you dig?  If the answer is RPGs or hack-n-slash RPG/action hybrids than this is the system for you.  And in my opinion, they have the best controller on the market as well.

The Xbox is good as well, but for different reasons.  I play my Xbox much more than my PS2 these days but that's after it sat there for almost 2 years, doing nothing but collecting dust.  I didn't jump on Halo when everyone else did (I eventually bought it but that was last summer) and the selection of games I like (RPGs, sports, action) were lacking badly compared to the PS2.  But now, the graphics are what draws me to buy the Xbox version of (for example) X-men Legends rather than the PS2 version.

You say you like fantasy?  Well, you've got the best and largest RPG library on the PS2.  You'll never run out of them to be honest.  And there are a ton of really good ones.  There is the Champions of Norrath series, Skies of Arcadia (great game!) Xenosaga 1&2, Dark Cloud 1 & 2, Star Ocean, Suikoden 3 & 4 plus Final Fantasy X, X-2 & XI (online only for XI).  Not to mention RPG/strategy games like Phantom Brave, La Pucelle: Tactics & Disgaea: Hour of Darkness.  There are more but those are the better ones.

One the other hand, for RPGs, the Xbox has Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 1 & 2 which are simply awesome.  It also has Morrowind & Fable.  Jade Empire will be out in a few months as well.  That game is going to be very cool.

Both systems have X-men Legends, Beyond Good & Evil and Baulder's Gate 1 & 2.

As for the really heavy hitters that don't directly deal with fantasy but are great games that just about anyone will enjoy - each system has some.  Again, the PS2 has more.

Xbox:  Halo 1 & 2.

PS2:  Final Fantasy X.  Grand Theft Auto 3, Vice City & San Andreas.  Metal Gear Solid 2 & 3.

There are also a slew of games with a list too long to name that are on both consoles.  Like other here have said:  What kind of games do you like the best?  Start there, check out some gaming review sites and go from there.


----------



## trancejeremy (Feb 7, 2005)

Don't forget the two Shadow Hearts games for the PS2.  They are amazing.  IMHO, anyway. Sort of alternate world fantasy-horror-historical games (they are set in 1915, in an Earth mostly like ours but with magic and a few steam punk elements and some anachorisms when it comes to speech and clothing)

Me, I probably like the Xbox better than the PS2, but I mostly play driving games and sports games, which tend to be better on the Xbox, since it has better graphics.  And I like the controller much better than the PS2 one. 

But RPGs mostly on the PS2. That's pretty much all I use it for, though I probably will get Gran Turismo 4 for it.  The only really good RPGs for the Xbox are also for the PC (Fable was not great, and Jade Empire is now seemingly more of an action game than RPG)


(Also, the Xbox will have all 3 GTA games. They already have the first two, and will get the third in June)


----------



## wedgeski (Feb 7, 2005)

Over the course of the last couple of years I've managed to get my hands on all three systems, and generally there isn't much to choose between them unless you're really fixated on some of the exclusives (example: if you like your Metroid, Mario, Zelda, etc., the GameCube is the only choice). The XBox has (generally) better graphics, the PS2 has a massive selection of games, and the GC has a ton of exclusive properties almost all of which are executed fantastically.

For me though the XBox has one exceptional feature which neither of the other two systems even come close to competing with: XBox Live!. If you have broadband, it's easily the best on-line service I've ever played (and I've been playing on-line with my PC for about 6 years). You have to pay for it (I think I paid £29.99 for the starter pack which includes the mic/headphone unit and 12 months subscription), but you get your money's worth within about 2 hours of any on-line competitive game (Project Gotham 2, any sports title you care to mention, Splinter Cell 2, the list goes on...). The PS2 has an online service as well but it feels laggy and half-hearted next to Microsoft's - I think they'll only truly start competing in the next gen.

And seriously, don't let the fact that XBox2 is *purported* to be out later this year, or the release of any of the next gen systems, stop you from picking any one of them up dirt cheap right now for 12 months of gaming goodness.


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 7, 2005)

As others have said: choose the games, then the system.

If you like console RPGs, then there's only one clear choice - the PS2. It has the largest and best selection of RPGs by far (the Xbox has virtually none, and anything worth playing is already on the PC).

If you like online games, then the PC is still your best bet. I wouldn't buy a console for anything online.

Also consider the controller - it's pretty much your sole interface with the game, so you'd better like the feel (I agree with John Crichton that the PS2 is the best - the Xbox cheeseburger comes up second, and IMO the GCN controller is entirely wretched).

This isn't a question about which console to buy. It's a question about what games you like. Looks like you have quite a bit of research to do.

(I have all 3 systems. I love my PS2 since I'm a fan of RPGs, so it's my favorite system. I do like the Xbox for FPS's, and it's controller is good for that. My GCN is virtually untouched, but there are a few gems on that system - and it's low price makes it come out on top of any cost/benefit analysis if you know exactly what games you want.)


----------



## wedgeski (Feb 7, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> If you like online games, then the PC is still your best bet. I wouldn't buy a console for anything online.




12 months ago I would have agreed with you, but not any more. There's something to be said for a service that is [a] broadband only, and * subscription-based, putting the pressure on the provider to make it worth the money.*


----------



## Falkus (Feb 7, 2005)

> Xbox versus PS2 for the discerning adult




To heck with both. PC is the only way to go, in my not so humble opinion. You just can't beat the ease and versatality of keyboard and mouse for most games.


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 8, 2005)

wedgeski said:
			
		

> * subscription-based, putting the pressure on the provider to make it worth the money.*



*
And there's the rub. The "friends list" on Xbox Live doesn't even remotely provide the value that they're asking with the subscription price (especially if you have even a half-decent PC, which pretty much covers that already). I haven't seen anything that makes Xbox Live worth the subscription price.

Subscription vs. free on PC? No contest.*


----------



## Raloc (Feb 8, 2005)

If you get a modded Xbox, it's worth it.  Otherwise, RPGs on PS2 are better.  The media functions on the Xbox make it way more worth it.  I use mine with Linksboks for surfing.  The KotOR (especially KotOR2) games are probably the best CRPGs I've played in a long time.  If you've a nice computer though, I'd just get them for that.  You can run at higher res and put on more effects.


----------



## Phoenix8008 (Feb 12, 2005)

Asking a question of my own here since it concerns the overall question of the thread. I know that PS2 plays DVD's, but does the X-box do this also?

Liking this thread since I myself have been looking at these two systems trying to decide if I wanted one over the other. As an additional concern for me, I have some old PS1 games still that I would be able to play on the PS2 but they would obviously be wasted on the X-box.


----------



## John Crichton (Feb 12, 2005)

Phoenix8008 said:
			
		

> Asking a question of my own here since it concerns the overall question of the thread. I know that PS2 plays DVD's, but does the X-box do this also?



Yes, it does but you have to buy a remote for it to make that function active.  I think it's like $25-30.  The PS2 plays them right out of the box.  And just thought I'd mention that my PS2 has recently started to slow down and skip every so often plus all my PS2 Dual Shocks are becoming non-responsive and clunky, so I picked up a new one; one of the those mini-PS2s.  The thing is SO small.  It's relevent to this question - a universal remote can control the DVD player because it has a built-in IR sensor on the front.



			
				Phoenix8008 said:
			
		

> Liking this thread since I myself have been looking at these two systems trying to decide if I wanted one over the other. As an additional concern for me, I have some old PS1 games still that I would be able to play on the PS2 but they would obviously be wasted on the X-box.



Xbox is very cool.  But the bigger selection of games is on the PS2.  Both are going to get a markdown this summer so get one now and wait 6 months to get the other.


----------



## reanjr (Feb 12, 2005)

Games that are on both platforms are almost always just a little better on XBox, so you really gotta check out the exclusive games.  Some of the most popular of the exclusive games follow (note, some have not yet been released, but are expected to be very popular)

XBox:
Conker
Fable
Half-Life 2
Halo series
Mech Assault series
Ninja Gaiden
Panzer Dragoon Orta
Project Gotham Racing
Splinter Cell 2: Pandora Tomorrow


PS2:
Devil May Cry series
Final Fantasy series
Gran Turismo series
Grand Theft Auto series
ICO
Resident Evil series (some also on Game Cube)
SOCOM series

A lot of the big name exclusive games are PS2, but XBox seems to have some of the more offbeat and unique exclusive games (Blinx for instance).


----------



## wedgeski (Feb 14, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> And there's the rub. The "friends list" on Xbox Live doesn't even remotely provide the value that they're asking with the subscription price (especially if you have even a half-decent PC, which pretty much covers that already). I haven't seen anything that makes Xbox Live worth the subscription price.
> 
> Subscription vs. free on PC? No contest.



I'll tell you what does it for me: the guarantee that everyone in the game is on broadband. That, and the slick (for the most part) matchmaking.

Maybe if you're a hard-core, guild-building, clan-luvvin', on-line super fiend, then go with PC.


----------



## John Crichton (Feb 14, 2005)

reanjr said:
			
		

> Grand Theft Auto series.



Xbox gets the GTA stuff as well, but not at first.

I'm waiting for GTA: SA to come out on Xbox this summer.  Mmmm.  Graphics.

It also bears mentioning that some of the cross-platform titles like SSX & NBA street look better on Xbox but their design was for a PS2 controller.  I own all 3 systems and for many of the sports games or games that require crazy combo button pushing that the PS2's controls make the game more enjoyable over the superior graphics.


----------



## Enforcer (Feb 14, 2005)

I had this dilemma almost a year ago and chose the Xbox. My reasons were as follows:

1) For cross-platform games, the Xbox generally has better graphics. This is especially true in rare cases like GTA 3 and Vice City where the Xbox release is deliberately improved to take advantage of the Xbox's better specs.

2) The Xbox had more exclusive games that I wanted to play (Knights of the Old Republic, Ninja Gaiden, Halo to name a few)--who cares if the PS2 has more games if all the ones I want to play are available on XBox?


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 14, 2005)

Enforcer said:
			
		

> 2) The Xbox had more exclusive games that I wanted to play (Knights of the Old Republic, Ninja Gaiden, Halo to name a few)--who cares if the PS2 has more games if all the ones I want to play are available on XBox?



That's true for me as well with the next gen exclusive titles.

Where I waffle a bit more, believe it or not, is in the old-fashioned Japanese 2-D fighting games, which for some strange reason are my favorite games to play.  Y'know, the stuff like Street Fighter and whatnot.  Even the best, most advanced games in this genre are old and crude enough they could easily be ported to the Dreamcast (in fact, they have been; _Street Fighter 3: Third Strike_ or _Fatal Fury: Mark of the Wolves_ are probably the high points of the entire genre) but oddly enough they've had spotty porting to PS2 and Xbox making my decision between the two more difficult than it should be.  Whichever system I get, I'm shutting out a few exclusive titles, and most of the really good ones are cross-platform (like _Capcom vs SNK 2_ or _King of Fighters 2002/2003_, which is just out on PS2 right now and which has an Xbox release scheduled for later this year).  Of course, most of them these days are Xbox live enabled, which increases the replay value tremendously, but I still like just playing against the computer or my kids well enough.

I guess that's not particularly helpful unless you share the same strange fetish for these old skool style games, but other than those, I agree with Enforcer 100%.  The PS2 may have a lot more games, but the Xbox has the ones I actually want to play.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 15, 2005)

Of course, as soon as I say that, I realize that Tekken 5 is now out, and is, of course, a PS2 exclusive.  [sigh]  Eventually I'll probably get both systems.  Probably when both have been replaced by next gens, though.


----------



## Enforcer (Feb 15, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Of course, as soon as I say that, I realize that Tekken 5 is now out, and is, of course, a PS2 exclusive.  [sigh]  Eventually I'll probably get both systems.  Probably when both have been replaced by next gens, though.




Get out of my head!!! I was just looking at gamespot.com's preview of Tekken 5 with more than a bit of console jealousy... It's really too bad that the game is only for PS2 and that it doesn't have an online component--it'd rock on Xbox Live.

One game isn't enough for me to buy a new system though. And besides, since World of Warcraft came out (for my Mac no less!) I haven't used my Xbox except to play DVDs...


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 22, 2005)

But Dead or Alive Ultimate is an Xbox exclusive.


----------



## Zoatebix (Feb 22, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> That's true for me as well with the next gen exclusive titles.
> 
> Where I waffle a bit more, believe it or not, is in the old-fashioned Japanese 2-D fighting games, which for some strange reason are my favorite games to play.  Y'know, the stuff like Street Fighter and whatnot.  Even the best, most advanced games in this genre are old and crude enough they could easily be ported to the Dreamcast (in fact, they have been; _Street Fighter 3: Third Strike_ or _Fatal Fury: Mark of the Wolves_ are probably the high points of the entire genre) but oddly enough they've had spotty porting to PS2 and Xbox making my decision between the two more difficult than it should be.



I'm very, very satisfied with Street Fighter: Anniversary collection on the Playstation 2.  Street Fighter III Third Strike is fantabulous.  And only the PS2 has the hi-res 2D-fighting godliness that is Guilty Gear X2.  Drooooool.  I hear Guilty Gear Isuka (4-player Guilty Gear!  Ye-gods!) is pretty good, too, but I'd recommend the older X2 any day of the week.

Sure you've got your fancy dead or alive on X-box, and I'm not a Tekken fan myself, but you can pick up one of the best 3D fighting games ever, Virtua Fighter 4: Evolution, for 20 bucks new.  It's like the polar opposite of the flashy and bizzare Guilty Gear - technical, gritty fighting.  Guilty Gear is still my favorite, though (have I mentioned that Guilty Gear X2 is amazing?).

Sony's PS2 also gives you the joy of Namco's Katamari Damacy.  Oh how I love it.  So simple.  So sublime.  Also for 20 bucks new.  Doesn't get much better than that.

I'm so glad someone mentioned Shadow Hears on the RPG front.  I've got to push Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne as well.  I haven't played it, but to some of my friends who's opinions mean the most to me in this world love for this game knows no bounds.

Another friend, the guy who does video game reviews and is the Arts and Entertainment editor for the Cavalier Daily (the campus (GROUNDS) newspaper) traded in other X-Box games just to get more controllers to play Halo 2.  I'm not sure if that says more about Halo 2 or about other the games.  When I said I was looking for a second system, he said go Game Cube.  Get yo'self some Shigeru Miyamoto games and Pikmin and stuff, said he.

The end.  Pick the games and then pick the system, like everyone else said.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 23, 2005)

Zoatebix said:
			
		

> I'm very, very satisfied with Street Fighter: Anniversary collection on the Playstation 2.  Street Fighter III Third Strike is fantabulous.  And only the PS2 has the hi-res 2D-fighting godliness that is Guilty Gear X2.  Drooooool.  I hear Guilty Gear Isuka (4-player Guilty Gear!  Ye-gods!) is pretty good, too, but I'd recommend the older X2 any day of the week.



I've already got Third Strike on the Dreamcast and have had for some time.  The Anniversary collection is also due to come out any day now for the Xbox and it will be Xbox live enabled, which is a real game-seller to many players.  Xbox also has a handful of Guilty Gear titles, and supposedly does them better than the PS2, though.  I'm not a fan of that series, so I couldn't tell you for sure.

What's this about both systems coming down in price this summer?  Any idea when or how much?  I was probably going to finally bite the bullet and pick one of them up next month when my bonus comes in, but I might hold out a little longer if it looks like it'll be that much less money.


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 23, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> The Anniversary collection is also due to come out any day now for the Xbox and it will be Xbox live enabled, which is a real game-seller to many players.



If by "many", you mean less than 7% of all Xbox owners (absolute maximum), then I agree.


> What's this about both systems coming down in price this summer?  Any idea when or how much?  I was probably going to finally bite the bullet and pick one of them up next month when my bonus comes in, but I might hold out a little longer if it looks like it'll be that much less money.



Only rumors - the manufacturers don't like giving out such information (for obvious reasons) and you'll never get a firm answer. It wouldn't be surprising, though, assuming Microsoft is on target with it's Xbox 2 release (and depending what they show during E3 in May).

If you're doing fine without it right now, then I'd recommend waiting. The system will only go down in price, and you have a greater chance in picking up the games for cheap.

(In the end, though, for fighting games I enjoy the DC far more than the newer systems - they just don't hold a candle to the gameplay on the DC. The only fighting game I enjoy on the newer systems is DoA2 on the PS2 [best gameplay/control of the bunch] and DoA Ultimate on the Xbox [superior options and the best of all the DoA games, blowing DoA3 out of the water. But then, I'm a DoA fan. All the other fighting games I stick with my DC.)


----------



## LeifVignirsson (Feb 23, 2005)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> The PS2 is unmatched with it's library of games.  Every genre is represented in full force.  RPG, action, driving, adventure, fighting - you name it, they got it.  The downside is the graphics:  they are the worst of the current generation of consoles.  So it comes down to:  what kind of games do you dig?  If the answer is RPGs or hack-n-slash RPG/action hybrids than this is the system for you.  And in my opinion, they have the best controller on the market as well.




Yes, I have to agree that PS2 (or PSTwo, whatever) is going to have a wide library as well as being able to play those great PSOne games, so the sky is really the limit on it.  I myself have 40 games for the PS2 and I am sure I will get at least 10 more before the system is left for dead...



			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> Skies of Arcadia (great game!)




Let's not confuse the poor boy, Skies is a Gamecube exclusive, but that was the whole reason why I picked up a GC in the first place.  Granted, it may be a little on the kiddish side but if you are looking for some of the better RPG's out there, you should invest in a GC as well... I think you can get a used one for $70?  $60?  Something like that... And they come in three colors, if that is something of concern for you...

[







			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> Not to mention RPG/strategy games like Phantom Brave, La Pucelle: Tactics & Disgaea: Hour of Darkness.




I am a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE (did I mention huge?) fan of Disgaea.  I have put in at least 300 hours into that game and it has NEVER gotten boring.  If you like potshots at Japanese culture (anime, anime and more anime) and great fantasy tactics (and you can find it on the cheap, it is not being produced anymore so it is starting to creep up in price), then I suggest you get this ASAP.  I mean, how can you go wrong with exploding penguins?

_Dooooood!_


----------



## John Crichton (Feb 23, 2005)

LeifVignirsson said:
			
		

> Let's not confuse the poor boy, Skies is a Gamecube exclusive



Whoops, I knew that.  Don't know how it slipped onto my list.  Oh well.  

And yeah, that sig pic is huge.  I would slim it down considerably....


----------



## drothgery (Feb 23, 2005)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Whoops, I knew that.  Don't know how it slipped onto my list.  Oh well.




Err... _Skies of Arcadia_ is a Dreamcast game, ported to the 'Cube. And the only reason I own a Cube.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 23, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> If by "many", you mean less than 7% of all Xbox owners (absolute maximum), then I agree.



I'm curious where you got that number, but no, that's not what I meant.  I meant fans of the game, who'd rather have Xbox live in a few days than PS2 now.  Especially if they've already got it on a Dreamcast (like me) and won't otherwise buy the Collection since it doesn't add anything else significantly new other than Xbox live.

Oh, and the animated movie too, I guess.  That could make it worth picking up.


			
				arnwyn said:
			
		

> (In the end, though, for fighting games I enjoy the DC far more than the newer systems - they just don't hold a candle to the gameplay on the DC. The only fighting game I enjoy on the newer systems is DoA2 on the PS2 [best gameplay/control of the bunch] and DoA Ultimate on the Xbox [superior options and the best of all the DoA games, blowing DoA3 out of the water. But then, I'm a DoA fan. All the other fighting games I stick with my DC.)



Heck, some of my favorite fighting games are still on the SNES.  There are a handful of games coming (or available now) for the PS2 only that I'm highly interested in in the fighting game genre, though, and ones that are multiplatform, luckily, I can also get on the PS2.  Giving up DOA Ultimate is no fun if I go with a PS2, but I'm sure Tekken 5 will go a long way towards the healing there.    Plus, I also can get Virtua Fighter 4.


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 24, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I'm curious where you got that number, but no, that's not what I meant.



I simply used the number of Xbox Live subscribers vs. XBox installed base (both public numbers).


> Especially if they've already got it on a Dreamcast (like me) and won't otherwise buy the Collection since it doesn't add anything else significantly new other than Xbox live.



Ah. Yeah, if they had it on the DC already, _and_ they subscribed to Live, then the Live component would likely be worth it. (Especially considering that the game is coming out at the 'bargain price' level.)


----------



## Zoatebix (Feb 24, 2005)

No love for Katamari Damacy besdies me?


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 25, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> I simply used the number of Xbox Live subscribers vs. XBox installed base (both public numbers).



Where are they?  I'm actually pretty curious about that.  Does it also break down Xbox installed base vs. PS2?  By region, etc.?


----------



## Allanon (Mar 1, 2005)

A simple guide to buying the current generation of consoles.

1. Look at the exclusive games for the consoles. A reasonably good list of those games can be found here.
2. Look around for good second hand deals. Most of the consoles can be had with a resonable starting library of games for absolute bargain prices but *always test drive everything before buying, don't have it shipped or buy it sight unsees*.
3. Don't buy a console because of things it can do besides gaming. The dvd playing quality of both the PS2 as the Xbox is bad compared to normal mid-range DVD players.
4. Neither should the option of hacking or modding a console weigh heavily in your decision. As all three the consoles have enough must-have budget titles which can be had even cheaper through ebay and assorted sites, so you can just wait till the newer titles drop in price before buying them.

Given that your a fantasy buff (I gather that that means that RPG's are at the top of your list) the PS2 has the strongest lineup in exclusive RPG's. Xbox comes second with GCN a weak third (more due to the limited RPG library then due to quality).

Hope this helps.


----------



## Clint (Mar 1, 2005)

Zoatebix said:
			
		

> No love for Katamari Damacy besdies me?



Mad love for Katamari Damacy. It both invented a style of gameplay and then dominated it. I haven't enjoyed a console game this much in a long, long time. Flawless victory.

-Clint


----------



## Arnwyn (Mar 1, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Where are they?  I'm actually pretty curious about that.  Does it also break down Xbox installed base vs. PS2?  By region, etc.?



I just Googled it (and it comes up a bunch of times). IGN also has the numbers somewhere on their site, which is where I saw them originally. Sorry I can't be of more help...

Nothing specifically "broken down" between the consoles as such (though there might be, I didn't delve into it that much), but the PS2 numbers are also available; however, the online numbers for the PS2 are more of an estimate because it's free and not subscription-based (thus more difficult to track the numbers there... I'm sure whatever numbers do show up for PS2 online have been touched by some marketing wank). Last I saw, there were many, many more people playing online on the PS2 than the Xbox (intuitively no surprise, considering the larger PS2 installed base and the fact that it's free). But how accurate those numbers are...

As for region - I have no idea if those would be publicly available (I'm guessing not - it'd be something their market researchers would keep to themselves, as opposed to the totals, which are used as part of the console manufacturer's insidious 'console wars' marketing).


----------



## WizarDru (Mar 2, 2005)

Clint said:
			
		

> Mad love for Katamari Damacy. It both invented a style of gameplay and then dominated it. I haven't enjoyed a console game this much in a long, long time. Flawless victory.
> 
> -Clint




What he said.  So different, so wacky...so GOOD.  The only game of 2004 I can't help but keep going back to play, even after I've beaten that game.  It's just so damn fun.  Flawless Victory, Indeed.


Now, as for consoles, there is no wrong answer.  I have all three, but enjoy the GC's exclusives more than any other console.  However, each one has something to offer.  Xbox-Live is, for me, much better than online PC gaming, for the games it supports.  No PC game I've ever played has gotten me into an online game as quickly and flawlessly as Xbox-live does.  One hopes that will change on the PC side.

PS/2: has some truly excellent games at truly great prices.  You can literally get some of the most popular games of two years ago for $5 used at EB, for example (such as the original Devil May Cry, Silent Hill 2 and Virtua Fighter 4).

Xbox: Best looking games, when the software takes advantage of it.  Has one of the best RPGs EVAR in Knights of the Old Republic.  While I'm not a huge fan of Morrowind, some folks really enjoyed it (mind, I liked it less on the PC, so there you are).  Best integration of online play of any of the three.

Gamecube: Fewest titles, but best quality ratio of the three, IMHO.  Exclusives like Zelda: Windwaker, Resident Evil 4 and Metroid Prime 1 and 2 are reasons enough to get the console.  It's also the cheapest console, but the PS/2 has cheaper used games.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Mar 2, 2005)

If you didn't have a Playstation 1 but have access to PS1 games, I'd definitely choose the PS2 over the XBox.  Although some of the fantasy (RPG) games for the newer systems have been quite good (such as Final Fantasy X, Shadow Hearts, and Suikoden 3), the PS1 generation had significantly better ones and ports of most of the best of the generation before (SNES Final Fantasies and Chrono Trigger, along with the Lunar series).

Essentially, the PS2 gives you three systems in one for RPG purposes - PS2, PS1 and a hybrid of SNES and Genesis/Sega CD.


----------



## Zoatebix (Mar 3, 2005)

Wizardru and MoogleEmpMog are quickly becoming my favorite posters... Spot-on, guys!


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 3, 2005)

Most of my friends have both an Xbox and a PS2. None of them ever play their PS2s. Ever. The PS2 has a bigger library of games but IMO, most of them suck. And the ones that do not suck have an Xbox version with superior graphics.

Can you tell, I'm biased. 

Yes, the PS2 has more RPGs, but none of them can touch Morrowind, Knights of the Old Republic, or Jade Empire. And forget about Final Fantasy. The series has become little more than interactive movies, you're lucky to get 5 minutes of play time per hour of CG cutscene. And when you do get to play its mindless monster killing. American RPGs have surpassed Japanese RPGs in pretty much every way. And I should know, I used to live in Japan! But hey, if you love those railroading cutscene heavy Japanese RPGs, you should know that Microsoft hired one of Square's former directors and game designers along with part of their crew to make two Japanese style Final Fantasy-esque RPGs exclusive to the Xbox 2. Microsoft plans on owning both the U.S. and Japanese game market in the next generation console wars.

If you are willing to wait and fork out the cash, I'd wait till Microsoft comes out with Xbox 2 at the end of this year. The big M also plans on releasing Halo 3 the exact day the PS3 comes out. A shrewd move that will cement their place at the top of the console wars, IMO.


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 3, 2005)

More news, in addition to getting Hironobu Sakaguchi to create Final Fantasy style RPGs for Xbox 2, Microsoft just announced a partnership with Yoshiki Okamoto (responsible in part for such Capcom favorites as Street Fighter, Resident Evil, Megaman, and even a Gameboy version of Legend of Zelda) and Tetsuya Mizuguchi (responsible in part for Sega Rally, Sega Touring Car, Rez, and Space Channel 5).

Looks like Microsoft is poised to take over the gaming world and even steal Sony's rule of the Japanese market by partnering with all the top Japanese game designers.


----------



## Vonlok The Bold (Mar 3, 2005)

I'm looking to buy a console system too.  My reasons are odd.  I am buying it primarily to get Dance Dance revolution so I can get in shape(hopefully in a fun way.)  Both systems currently have that title available.  I will most likely get an x-box, but I don't know for sure.

I will enjoy the other games as well, but they aren't my primary reason for buying the system.  When talking about RPG's PS2 seems to have more games, but the best rpg that I can imagine is Morrowind which is only on the x-box.  I've played the game on the PC and it is a great one.  Only x-box has that one.

One thing I've noticed about PS2 games and x-box games as well is that almost every game has the protagonist jump in the air and do a flip.  That is true of fighting games, platform games, rpg adventures etc.  It's almost like the characters can't jump unless they flip.


----------



## WizarDru (Mar 3, 2005)

Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Wizardru and MoogleEmpMog are quickly becoming my favorite posters... Spot-on, guys!




We live to serve. 



			
				Vonlok The Bold said:
			
		

> I'm looking to buy a console system too. My reasons are odd. I am buying it primarily to get Dance Dance revolution so I can get in shape(hopefully in a fun way.) Both systems currently have that title available. I will most likely get an x-box, but I don't know for sure.




This depends on how many versions you want available to you. Currently, the Xbox has both DDR Ultramix and Ultramix 2. The PS/2, meanwhile, has four versions, and can play 4 other versions from the PS/1. Moreover, the PS/2 has (for the adventurous) seven or eight more versions in Japan. Gamecube is getting a Mario version later this year, though details are scarce.

Oh, and Your reasons aren't odd. Lots of folks (myself included) have considered it as an option. It's one reason they put an exercise mode in the game, after all.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Mar 3, 2005)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Yes, the PS2 has more RPGs, but none of them can touch Morrowind, Knights of the Old Republic, or Jade Empire. And forget about Final Fantasy. The series has become little more than interactive movies, you're lucky to get 5 minutes of play time per hour of CG cutscene. And when you do get to play its mindless monster killing. American RPGs have surpassed Japanese RPGs in pretty much every way. And I should know, I used to live in Japan! But hey, if you love those railroading cutscene heavy Japanese RPGs, you should know that Microsoft hired one of Square's former directors and game designers along with part of their crew to make two Japanese style Final Fantasy-esque RPGs exclusive to the Xbox 2. Microsoft plans on owning both the U.S. and Japanese game market in the next generation console wars.




I'd rather watch a Japanese RPG than play the soulless, storyless tripe that comes out for the PC.  Especially since the gameplay in most PC-style RPGs (KotR is something of an exception, I'll admit) has gone so far downhill in the last five years that they're barely playable.

If I want a decent American game, I know where to find it.  Warcraft, Doom, Half-Life, Unreal...  I love American action and real-time strategy games.  But modern American "RPGs" are little more than poorly-concieved real-time strategy games with stories vastly inferior to anything Blizzard has done (aside from its only sort-of RPG, Diablo) and stats.

Japanese and Japanese-style RPGs set out to tell a story; there's a game involved, but in many cases it's secondary to the world, the tale and especially the characters.  If you want mindless hack and slash, or to uberize your character with race/class/stat-up combos, then none of that is important.

Gameplay still should be.

When was the last time an American company made a decent turn-based game?  New World Computing with Heroes of Might & Magic 3?  Or did Civ III come out after Heroes 3?  By contrast, Japanese RPG/turn-based strategy hybrids have since then included Final Fantasy Tactics, Vandal Hearts 2, Tactics Ogre, Front Mission 3, the Nippon Ichi games (like Disgaea).  Not to mention rereleases of older games like Tactics Ogre or Growlanser.  Any one of those is ten times the game any PC RPG has been since the last Gold Box game, or, MAYBE, Fallout.

I don't have monstrous twitch reflexes.  I don't enjoy third-rate RTSes (Baldur's Gate) masquerading as RPGs.  I usually don't enjoy second-rate action-adventure games (Knights of the Old Republic, console versions of Baldur's Gate) doing same.


----------



## Arnwyn (Mar 3, 2005)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Yes, the PS2 has more RPGs, but none of them can touch Morrowind, Knights of the Old Republic,



*blinks* If you say so.


> or Jade Empire.



I didn't know that it was out yet.


> And forget about Final Fantasy. The series has become little more than interactive movies, you're lucky to get 5 minutes of play time per hour of CG cutscene. And when you do get to play its mindless monster killing. American RPGs have surpassed Japanese RPGs in pretty much every way.



Heh. Looks like you're a little out of the loop, IMO.


> Can you tell, I'm biased.



I'll say.

But, different strokes and all that. I, personally, will play Suikoden, Xenosaga, Disgaea, and yes, even Final Fantasy before I'll ever go back to Morrowind.


> by partnering with all the top Japanese game designers.



"All", hmmm?


----------



## Mallus (Mar 3, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> I'd rather watch a Japanese RPG than play the soulless, storyless tripe that comes out for the PC.  Especially since the gameplay in most PC-style RPGs (KotR is something of an exception, I'll admit) has gone so far downhill in the last five years that they're barely playable.



You forgot one other exception, Planescape: Torment.

Other than that, I kinda agree...


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Mar 3, 2005)

Mallus said:
			
		

> You forgot one other exception, Planescape: Torment.
> 
> Other than that, I kinda agree...




Story-wise, I'll definitely agree.  Even as a person who disliked Planescape in general and the city of Sigil in particular, I found Torment's plot and characters fascinating.  I didn't care for its gameplay, though - Baldur's Gate +, perhaps, but still in the same vein.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Mar 3, 2005)

The thing I dislike about most Japanese RPGs is that they are in no way RPGs. You don't play a role in Final Fantasy anymore than you play a role in Mario. Nothing you do will affect the story in any meaningful way. I still enjoy the games for what they are though, but calling them RPGs is a travesty.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Mar 3, 2005)

I'm gonna have to agree with Dragonblade.  I haven't enjoyed any recent Japanese console RPGs because it feels like I'm watching a movie occasionally interrupted by interactive combat sequences.  Plus, I'm getting a little burned out on how almost every Final Fantasy game inevitably seems to involve a group of angst-ridden, beautiful teenagers saving the world.  It's like I'm watching Dawson's Creek with swords. 

Baldur's Gate 2, Planescape: Torment, and Knights of the Old Republic, on the other hand, are some of my favorite RPGs of all times.  Those games had great storylines, addictive gameplay, memorable characters, and allowed you to have at least _some_ influence over the storyline.


----------



## trancejeremy (Mar 3, 2005)

Many console RPGs have some sort of multiple endings. In fact, I think Chrono Trigger pretty much pioneered the multiple ending/non-linear RPG, though it wasn't the first to do so.

Some people play RPGs for the story and characterization, some play it for the rampant munchinkinism (Woohoo, I'm level 2000!), some enjoy the combat (be it tactical or action).  There's no right answer. 

Personally, I like Morrowind, but don't think it's much of an RPG since there are basically no distinct characters that you can interact with meaningfully or anything resembling a plot.  It's more like Elite, but in a fantasy world. You go whereever want, kill stuff, take their stuff, explore, sight see. Fun but very empty and cold.

I was looking forward to Jade Empire, until I learned it would have a whole lot of action elements, like a fighting game. No thanks.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Mar 3, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I'm gonna have to agree with Dragonblade.  I haven't enjoyed any recent Japanese console RPGs because it feels like I'm watching a movie occasionally interrupted by interactive combat sequences.




Do you watch movies?

If so, why not watch 40-hour movies with interactive combat sequences, rather than 3-hour movies without them?

Note also that I reccomended the Playstation 2 precisely because it, unlike the XBox, is backwards compatible.  You can play Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy 6, Lunar Eternal Blue, Wild ARMs 2, Suikoden or Xenogears, as well as Final Fantasy X, Shadow Hearts and Star Ocean 3.  The older console RPGs are, IMO, better games (and better stories, by and large) - hardly "recent."



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Plus, I'm getting a little burned out on how almost every Final Fantasy game inevitably seems to involve a group of angst-ridden, beautiful teenagers saving the world.  It's like I'm watching Dawson's Creek with swords.




Point.  Sort of.

To cite the most recent installment Wakka, Kimahri, Lulu and certainly Auron were all 20 or older, and neither Rikku nor Yuna were terribly angsty.  

Nonetheless, I prefer several other series (such as Shadow Hearts, Wild ARMs and pre-4 Suikoden) to Final Fantasy; but Final Fantasy defines the type for people who've never played this kind of game.



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Baldur's Gate 2, Planescape: Torment, and Knights of the Old Republic, on the other hand, are some of my favorite RPGs of all times.  Those games had great storylines, addictive gameplay, memorable characters, and allowed you to have at least _some_ influence over the storyline.




-shrug-

If I want to influence a story, I'll play pen-n-paper.  People on ENWorld generally have access to some type of RPG experience.  If I want a story of novel-like depth and complexity that doesn't sacrifice interesting plot twists to player influence, I'll pop in a console RPG.

But if you found Baldur's Gate and Torment's gameplay "addicting"...

Sorry, man, but I'm just not into S&M


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 4, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> I'd rather watch a Japanese RPG than play the soulless, storyless tripe that comes out for the PC.  Especially since the gameplay in most PC-style RPGs (KotR is something of an exception, I'll admit) has gone so far downhill in the last five years that they're barely playable.




Not every American RPG is good. But the best American RPGs are better, IMO than the best Japanese RPGs.



> If I want a decent American game, I know where to find it.  Warcraft, Doom, Half-Life, Unreal...  I love American action and real-time strategy games.  But modern American "RPGs" are little more than poorly-concieved real-time strategy games with stories vastly inferior to anything Blizzard has done (aside from its only sort-of RPG, Diablo) and stats.
> 
> Japanese and Japanese-style RPGs set out to tell a story; there's a game involved, but in many cases it's secondary to the world, the tale and especially the characters.  If you want mindless hack and slash, or to uberize your character with race/class/stat-up combos, then none of that is important.
> 
> Gameplay still should be.




Story? Their story, with their characters, their plot, and other than giving you the ability push the button for attack, or the button for spell, there is virtually no "game" involved. To me an RPG is about making my own choices, creating my own character, and doing what I want. Not what some frustrated Japanese movie maker masquerading as a game designer wants.

I wouldn't consider FF Tactics, Tactics Ogre, Front Mission, etc. RPGs in any sense of the word. They are pure strategy games. And I thought most of them were pretty boring.



> I don't have monstrous twitch reflexes.  I don't enjoy third-rate RTSes (Baldur's Gate) masquerading as RPGs.  I usually don't enjoy second-rate action-adventure games (Knights of the Old Republic, console versions of Baldur's Gate) doing same.




The console versions of Baldur's Gate are not RPGs. They are action games with character building elements.

Basically the fundamental difference between the current generation of American RPGs and Japanese RPGs is the fact that an American RPG lets me customize my character, not only in terms of stats, race, class, etc. But also gives me freedom to move through the storyline in the manner that I desire. You have no such control or freedom with 99% of Japanese RPGs. All those beautiful CG cinema scenes mean nothing to me because I don't care about the characters in most cases. And the reason is because I don't get to take those characters and make them mine. I just have to sit back and watch them make poor decisions, or be totally railroaded down lame plots that would have been far more interesting were I given an actual decision in how they unfolded.


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 4, 2005)

I lived in Japan and owned a Japanese PS2. I played that thing to death. And before that, when I was a college student, I lived with a host family in Tokyo and played through Final Fantasy 8, Front Mission, and so on with my Japanese host brother.

I'm not totally bagging on Japanese games. A lot of decent games still come from Japan. But I've realized over time that 99% of them are all the same. Some good, some mediocre, some bad. None of them ever completely sucked, and none of them ever blew me away. Eventually I got tired of them.

Now when I play American games (especially RPGs) I experience the full gamut of utter dreck to beyond awesome. Now, granted no one wants to play a game that sucks. But I do want to play games that totally blow me away. And in my experience, only American games reach those lofty heights (granted they are few, but they are there). So while FF X may be a gorgeously animated game, it was far too limiting for my tastes, whereas Morrowind just totally blew me away through the sheer freedom and options I had.

Again, thats just my opinion.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Mar 4, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Do you watch movies?
> 
> If so, why not watch 40-hour movies with interactive combat sequences, rather than 3-hour movies without them?




Because I buy a gaming system to play games on, not (as Dragonblade put it) sit through the latest creation of a wannabe movie director posing as a game designer.



> -shrug-
> 
> If I want to influence a story, I'll play pen-n-paper.  People on ENWorld generally have access to some type of RPG experience.  If I want a story of novel-like depth and complexity that doesn't sacrifice interesting plot twists to player influence, I'll pop in a console RPG.
> 
> ...




Funny.  The way you feel about the gameplay in the Infinity Engine games is exactly how I feel about the gameplay in most console RPGs.

Most recent console RPGs that I've played have very little in the way of gameplay.  The "combat" usually involves selecting "attack" or "cast spell" from a menu, waiting for the enemies to attack you back, lather, rinse, repeat until enemies are all dead and the game moves on to the next set of long dialogue sequences and CGI cutscenes (although there might be repetitive mini-games involving chocobos or collectable cards that you can do to get access to better weapons).

I've played through Baldur's Gate 2 (with expansion pack) over five times trying out different character builds, choosing different NPCs to party with, doing different subquests, and taking different paths through the storyline.  When I played Baldur's Gate II, I actually felt like I was a participant rather than a spectator.

And having control over the story dosen't make it less good, either:  IMO, Baldur's Gate II and Planescape: Torment both had better storylines and characters than any Japanese console RPGs I've _ever_ played.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Mar 4, 2005)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Story? Their story, with their characters, their plot, and other than giving you the ability push the button for attack, or the button for spell, there is virtually no "game" involved. To me an RPG is about making my own choices, creating my own character, and doing what I want. Not what some frustrated Japanese movie maker masquerading as a game designer wants.




To me, what the game is called is immaterial.  Whether it's a "game" or not is immaterial.  That it's often a darn good story with a beautifully rendered setting that's more compelling than 99% of the Tolkien-ripoff fantasy novels on the market?  That matters.

Japanese game designers apparently don't see themselves differently from movie makers.  They apparently don't feel their medium is inherently inferior to film as a medium for storytelling.

I happen to agree with them.



			
				Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I wouldn't consider FF Tactics, Tactics Ogre, Front Mission, etc. RPGs in any sense of the word. They are pure strategy games. And I thought most of them were pretty boring.




I don't care if they're "RPGs" in any sense of the word.  They're fine games with great stories.

If you found them boring, well...

Perhaps it's no coincidence that you haven't listed a single strategy-oriented, turn-based game in the roster of those that you've really liked.



			
				Dragonblade said:
			
		

> So while FF X may be a gorgeously animated game, it was far too limiting for my tastes, whereas Morrowind just totally blew me away through the sheer freedom and options I had.




If I want to swing on a chandelier, pulling it down at the end of the swing so it falls on my enemies while I slide free and yank out a rapier to impale a major boss, will Morrowind let me?

How about if I want to construct an airship out of the shattered hull of a sailing vessel and the stomach lining of a great wyrm dragon?

Didn't think so.

I can do those things in d20 or any other tabletop RPG.  THAT'S sheer freedom and options.  Options that mean a lot more than branching dialogue trees, options that are limited only by my imagination and my GM's, options that, since they can be created on the fly, can weave an interesting saga around my customized character.

Modern PC RPGs give me stories neutered to provide meaningless customization within preset options.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Mar 4, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Because I buy a gaming system to play games on, not (as Dragonblade put it) sit through the latest creation of a wannabe movie director posing as a game designer.




-shrug-

I buy them for entertainment, whatever form that might take.



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Funny.  The way you feel about the gameplay in the Infinity Engine games is exactly how I feel about the gameplay in most console RPGs.
> 
> Most recent console RPGs that I've played have very little in the way of gameplay.  The "combat" usually involves selecting "attack" or "cast spell" from a menu, waiting for the enemies to attack you back, lather, rinse, repeat until enemies are all dead and the game moves on to the next set of long dialogue sequences and CGI cutscenes (although there might be repetitive mini-games involving chocobos or collectable cards that you can do to get access to better weapons).




Again with the recent (though I'd disagree).

I'd love to see someone get through Wild ARMs 2 with just the Attack and Magic commands.  I could say the same about Wild ARMs 3, for all its myriad problems.  How about Legend of Legaia 2 - no "attack" command to press, and a very deep combo system to explore.

To say nothing of the superb gamut of Tactics RPGs which provide a kind of gameplay no American game has since Civ III at the latest.



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I've played through Baldur's Gate 2 (with expansion pack) over five times trying out different character builds, choosing different NPCs to party with, doing different subquests, and taking different paths through the storyline.  When I played Baldur's Gate II, I actually felt like I was a participant rather than a spectator.




I envy the fortitude to suffer through the boring twitchy battle system even once.  

Again, I guess you just never watch movies.  I don't watch all that many myself, but I've seen quite a few that I enjoyed being a spectator to.  Having a simple, fun battle system attached, or better yet a deep and engrossing system with real tactics, is a big plus.



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> And having control over the story dosen't make it less good, either:  IMO, Baldur's Gate II and Planescape: Torment both had better storylines and characters than any Japanese console RPGs I've _ever_ played.




Planescape: Torment I can understand, although I certainly disagree - the depth of Xenogears or the verisimilitude of Vandal Hearts 2 make it look like a merely average DM's gaming session.

Baldur's Gate, though?

I'll admit, I couldn't bring myself to finish either installment of that series; perhaps it picked up - a lot - later.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Mar 4, 2005)

> Again with the recent (though I'd disagree).
> 
> I'd love to see someone get through Wild ARMs 2 with just the Attack and Magic commands.  I could say the same about Wild ARMs 3, for all its myriad problems.  How about Legend of Legaia 2 - no "attack" command to press, and a very deep combo system to explore.
> 
> To say nothing of the superb gamut of Tactics RPGs which provide a kind of gameplay no American game has since Civ III at the latest.




These "tactics RPGs" you are mentioning (FF Tactics, Tactics Ogre, Front Mission, etc) are strategy games with perhaps a few light RPG elements thrown in for flavor.  If you can call them RPGs, then I can call Super Mario Brothers a first-person shooter.



> I envy the fortitude to suffer through the boring twitchy battle system even once.




Just out of curiosity, what makes BG2's combat "twitchy?"  Is it the fact that it's pausable real-time rather than turn-based?

For that matter, why is turn-based automatically assumed to be good while real-time is automatically assumed to be bad?



> Again, I guess you just never watch movies.  I don't watch all that many myself, but I've seen quite a few that I enjoyed being a spectator to.




Yes, I watch movies.  I enjoy watching movies.  I don't like my games to be movies, which also explains why I didn't like Metal Gear Solid 2 (which seemed to have endless CG cutscenes for every few minutes of gameplay).



> Having a simple, fun battle system attached, or better yet a deep and engrossing system with real tactics, is a big plus.




Which is why I liked BG2 and PS:T's combat systems.  They managed to nicely fit the AD&D ruleset into a real-time combat system.



> Planescape: Torment I can understand, although I certainly disagree - the depth of Xenogears or the verisimilitude of Vandal Hearts 2 make it look like a merely average DM's gaming session.
> 
> Baldur's Gate, though?
> 
> I'll admit, I couldn't bring myself to finish either installment of that series; perhaps it picked up - a lot - later.




You may feel that the BG games are completely without merit, which is your right, but even I can admit that Final Fantasy X had good graphics, animation, music, and storyline (even though it was sorely lacking in gameplay and interactivity).  Still, the Baldur's Gate franchise must have at least _something_ going for it, considering how many copies it sold and how many "RPG of the Year" and "Game of the Year" awards it won.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 4, 2005)

On a slightly different tack; this article may be of interest.  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6199779/site/newsweek/

Oh, and MoogleEmpOg, keep in mind, the original poster said he was a middle-aged fantasy enthusiast from Norman, OK.  I think you're a bit off-base by recommending a slew of Japanese titles and denigrating stuff like Baldur's Gate.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Mar 4, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Oh, and MoogleEmpOg, keep in mind, the original poster said he was a middle-aged fantasy enthusiast from Norman, OK.  I think you're a bit off-base by recommending a slew of Japanese titles and denigrating stuff like Baldur's Gate.




Why?

I know several middle-aged fantasy enthusiasts living in the midwestern (well, western) United States who play Final Fantasy religiously; at least one of them won't touch Baldur's Gate with a 10-ft. pole (although an 11-ft. pole might work).

Perhaps the aversion to Bioware is a bloodline issue, though - the only one I know for a fact doesn't like BG is a relative.  



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> These "tactics RPGs" you are mentioning (FF Tactics, Tactics Ogre, Front Mission, etc) are strategy games with perhaps a few light RPG elements thrown in for flavor. If you can call them RPGs, then I can call Super Mario Brothers a first-person shooter.




Fair enough.

I'll just call them "good games, most of which are set in a fantasy world."

The original poster said he was a fantasy enthusiast, not specifically that he was looking for RPGs.  For all we know, he'd actually prefer a fantasy-based real-time strategy game like Warcraft and we're all wildly off-base.  

Although Mario lacks even "a few light RPG elements."



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, what makes BG2's combat "twitchy?" Is it the fact that it's pausable real-time rather than turn-based?
> 
> For that matter, why is turn-based automatically assumed to be good while real-time is automatically assumed to be bad?




Yes, it's because it's pausable real-time.

What makes real-time bad?

The fact that I don't like it.  

I have no idea if the OP likes it or not, but from my perspective, it has absolutely stagnated two entire genres of PC games (strategy and role-playing) that used to be my favorites.  Since most posters on ENWorld play some type of pen-n-paper RPGs (generally turn based, them buggers), I think it's a better than 50% chance that the OP is at least more comfortable with turn-based battle systems.



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Yes, I watch movies. I enjoy watching movies. I don't like my games to be movies, which also explains why I didn't like Metal Gear Solid 2 (which seemed to have endless CG cutscenes for every few minutes of gameplay).




-shrug-

Why do you arbitrarily assign designations like that?

Saying you don't like Metal Gear Solid because the story it tells is off-the-wall if not downright silly is fine.  But why shouldn't a quote-unquote "game" be just as valid a vehicle for telling you that poor story?



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Which is why I liked BG2 and PS:T's combat systems. They managed to nicely fit the AD&D ruleset into a real-time combat system.




Fair enough.  We differ mostly on the "nicely."

Although...

AD&D.  Fun and simple.

 



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> You may feel that the BG games are completely without merit, which is your right, but even I can admit that Final Fantasy X had good graphics, animation, music, and storyline (even though it was sorely lacking in gameplay and interactivity). Still, the Baldur's Gate franchise must have at least something going for it, considering how many copies it sold and how many "RPG of the Year" and "Game of the Year" awards it won.




Baldur's Gate did have something going for it.

Minsc and Boo.

I mean, duh.  

Seriously, though - I hated Baldur's Gate and it's brood.  I enjoyed almost nothing about the games.  The graphics hurt my eyes, the gameplay annoyed me to no end, the lack of a strong driving storyline drove me to distraction, and wading through the massive dialogue trees with every stinking random passerby  bored me to tears.  I enjoyed the voice acting and (what little there was of) the characterization, but that was it.  The fact that it became extremely popular mystifies me to no end.

I've bought and tried to play BG 1&2 and Icewind Dale 1&2, loathed three of them, and found BG2 at best tolerable.  Planescape: Torment was the only entry in the series I enjoyed, probably because its unusual setting and tighter focus allowed it to explore the characters in more depth.

I recall reading an interview with somebody (maybe Monte Cook?) where he described the experience of playing Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil on his PC as being like playing the module in real life - with a very poor DM.  Whoever it was, actually meant it as praise, but praise with a caveat.

That's how I feel about all the Baldur's Gate and later PC RPGs - they're like really poor sessions of D&D, without the social interaction.

Console RPGs offer (me) a completely different experience from pen-n-paper RPGs; PC RPGs (and the XBox ports thereof) offer (me) an experience that is like pen-n-paper, but not as good.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 4, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> I know several middle-aged fantasy enthusiasts living in the midwestern (well, western) United States who play Final Fantasy religiously; at least one of them won't touch Baldur's Gate with a 10-ft. pole (although an 11-ft. pole might work).
> 
> Perhaps the aversion to Bioware is a bloodline issue, though - the only one I know for a fact doesn't like BG is a relative.



Because preference of Japanese anime-influenced RPGs, like, oh, all of the one's you've recommended is an acquired taste, not a default for someone who says, "I'm a middle-aged fantasy enthusiast looking for a video game system; which one?"


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 4, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> When was the last time an American company made a decent turn-based game?  New World Computing with Heroes of Might & Magic 3?  Or did Civ III come out after Heroes 3?



NWC made Heroes 4, for one.  Disciples II, and it's expansions came out, I believe, after Heroes 3, although that's a Canadian, not American company.  The first Age of Wonders came out roughly the same time as Heroes 3, but the sequels, obviously came after.  That was a joint American/Dutch venture, IIRC.  I don't remember when Civ III came out, never having really followed that series.

But yeah, I'm a bit tired of RTS games.  I never liked any of them that much anyway.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Mar 4, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Because preference of Japanese anime-influenced RPGs, like, oh, all of the one's you've recommended is an acquired taste, not a default for someone who says, "I'm a middle-aged fantasy enthusiast looking for a video game system; which one?"




Based on my personal experience, I would call it a default - I can't speak for about 50% of the middle-aged fantasy enthusiasts I know, but those I can identify found that Japanese RPGs clicked for them immediately.  The others may have acquired the taste.



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> NWC made Heroes 4, for one. Disciples II, and it's expansions came out, I believe, after Heroes 3, although that's a Canadian, not American company. The first Age of Wonders came out roughly the same time as Heroes 3, but the sequels, obviously came after. That was a joint American/Dutch venture, IIRC. I don't remember when Civ III came out, never having really followed that series.
> 
> But yeah, I'm a bit tired of RTS games. I never liked any of them that much anyway.




Well, I said 'decent.'  

Actually, both the Disciples and Age of Wonders series are quite enjoyable.  I'd just forgotten about them.  

Disciples doesn't count, though - it's Canadian, eh.  Of course, so is Bioware, so perhaps it's the pernicious _hoser_ influence that's ruined PC RPGs!


----------



## WizarDru (Mar 4, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> On a slightly different tack; this article may be of interest.  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6199779/site/newsweek/
> 
> Oh, and MoogleEmpOg, keep in mind, the original poster said he was a middle-aged fantasy enthusiast from Norman, OK. I think you're a bit off-base by recommending a slew of Japanese titles and denigrating stuff like Baldur's Gate.




The article was interesting, but myopic and, I think, incorrect.  2004 was a banner year for games overall, but the list was somewhat lopsided.  The ten biggest games of the year made up for a massive 15% of sales: particularly Halo 2 (4.2 million copies) and GTA:San Andreas (5.4 million copies).  That makes the whole analysis somewhat lopsided.  Of the top 10 games, 3 were from EA and 3 from Take Two.  None of this even begins to take into account console sales, either, including the nearly 6 million DS units that Nintendo expects to have shipped by the end of the month, or the 1-2 million PSPs set to sell this month.

The Japanese game makers no longer have an exclusive lock, is all.  They still produce a huge amount of games, many of which are quite popular.

My personal feeling about console RPGs is this:  different folks like different things...and the arguments over U.S. versus Japanese RPGs has been going on for more than 15 years....the biggest difference these days is that a console RPG is no longer automatically a Japanese RPG.

Morrowind is a carryover of a PC game, and it feels like it.  Certain aspects of Morrowind are excellent, IMHO.  You have true freedom: you can become whatever kind of character you want, and have true choices over developing your character.  But at the same time, that freedom is mitigated by two things I didn't like: lots of boring travel and repitition, and only a veil of a plot you don't actually have to even get involved in.  Ultimately, the game features lots of choices, but very little actual interaction, per se.  You go through lots of hoops and different quests, but it all started to bleed together for me, after a while.

Knights of the Old Republic is different, to a degree, in that it's a much better game....but like most Bioware games, you don't REALLY have that much of a choice.  Whether you honestly say "Yes, Master Jedi, I embrace the force" or mutter through your teeth half-sarcastically "Oh suuuure....I'd LUUUHV to be a Jediiii....", you still follow the plot.  You have the illusion of freedom...but it's an illusion.   Most of the game's ultimate ending is deteremined by one choice you make late in the game.  Your experiences up until that point are affected by your behavior....but the ultimate plot is not.

More old-sk00l US RPGs are really just tactical endeavours, historically, such as Nethack, Wizardry, the original Bard's Tale series, Might and Magic and their ilk.  The central over-riding quest (usually, defeat the Grand Foozle) required you to become powerful, travel the lands, kill things and take their phat lewt.

Console RPGs take railroading to a different level.  Whereas in KOTOR you have some choices of relevance (who joins your party, what powers you develop and what order you take different quests in), many japanese console RPGs deny you even these levels of decision-making.  They present you with "non-choices" that may change a piece of text, but don't alter the overall flow of the game.  Example: in Tales of Symphonia for the GC, you have lots of choices in little social cut-scenes, like choosing to ask one of three characters a question or choosing to wake character X to aske them something.  These all contribute to their attitude towards the main character, and have nominal in-game effects...but you choices don't change the plot, don't change the story and have only minor effects on the gameplay in any capacity.  You are effectively playing an interactive movie, where you get to make minor choices in the experience, but the game moves at its own pace.  Characters will drop out of your party without any decision by you, and vice-versa.  To some folks, this can be infuriatingly frustrating, while for others, it can be part of the fun.  For proof, just read above.

Part of the confusion, I suppose, comes from the terminology.  What makes an RPG an RPG?  Is it the leveling-elements?  The quests?  The story?  The ability to assume a role?  The ability to truly interact on your own level?  By my way of thinking, NONE of the games mentioned so far give anything on that level of verisimilitude that pen-and-paper offers.   Despite claims to the contrary, you really are quite limited, by necessity, in all of these games.  Don't want to become a Jedi in KOTOR?  Too bad, you don't have a choice.  No Han Solo for you.  Want to turn to evil and join the big bad foozle in Final Fantasy?  Sorry, no can do.  Would you like to see the Emperor in Morrowind, and travel to the capital?  Fraid not.  

Tactical RPG is, of course, something of a misnomer.  They are RPGs in the cosmetic sense that they take away all pretense of story choice.  If Final Fantasy railroads you, Vandal Hearts just tells you how it is, PERIOD.  Whereas you might wander around town for an hour before going to a dungeon in Morrowind, in Fire Emblem, you're told straight up that you've gone to an abandoned abbey, when suddenly your party is attacked...ROLL FOR INITIATIVE.  Tactical RPGs have much more in common with D&D miniatures, in a campaign mode.  You carry over your characters, and may have some control in how they level up...but that's it.  Some would argue that Diablo's dirty little secret is not that it isn't an RPG, but that it's an RPG in it's purest form, with all that story nonsense cut out.  It's just the kill-lewt-level luvin', without all that other stuff getting in the way.  In many ways, a game like Diablo is the diametric opposite of Final Fantasy.

Into this sway, of course, come the hybrids.  Quick, is Resident Evil 4 an RPG, an adventure, an action game, a third-person shooter or a interactive movie?  It has elements of all of the above, but isn't really any of them.  I mean, you can choose to give extra health to your character or the sidekick, you can upgrade your weapons (by increasing their various stats), you have some choices of how to go through the game (take the El Gigante route or the maze of Los Ganados) and you kill creatures and take their loot.  You don't get to choose a role to assume, but you do have one you can take. 

 How about Devil May Cry?  Metal Gear Solid has been mentioned, but since you can't really change your stats, I rule that one out.  How about Paper Mario: the Thousand Year Door?  Is it really that radically different than Planescape: Torment or Fallout 2?

Your specific answers to the above questions help determine which game you like.  Each has it's own appeals and distractions.  Tastes vary, folks, and there is no right answer.  Ultimately, what's for fun for one person may be drudgery for another.  Follow your bliss.

Then kill it and take it's loot.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 4, 2005)

X-Box is the superior technical system in that it has support for 5.1 surround sound in addition to supporting a wide variety of HDTV format options.

PS-2 has more and through the process of weeding out the dross, better games.

X-Box has it's share of good games though so either one is a viable option. If you have a HD-TV and a 5.1 surround sound system, it's the X-Box.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 4, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Based on my personal experience, I would call it a default - I can't speak for about 50% of the middle-aged fantasy enthusiasts I know, but those I can identify found that Japanese RPGs clicked for them immediately.  The others may have acquired the taste.



Based on my personal experience I'd claim nearly the opposite...    the middle-aged fantasy enthusiasts in our group like KOTOR, Baldur's Gate and the like, but have no interest in Final Fantasy and no knowledge of (or any desire to acquire such) any of the other games you mentioned.


			
				MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Actually, both the Disciples and Age of Wonders series are quite enjoyable.  I'd just forgotten about them.



Which is a shame; in many ways, I think both have better concepts than the Heroes series.  Although I think Heroes is prettier, at least.


			
				MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Disciples doesn't count, though - it's Canadian, eh.  Of course, so is Bioware, so perhaps it's the pernicious _hoser_ influence that's ruined PC RPGs!



Quite right.  For many years I underestimated the insidious and vile influence of the Great White North, but now that I'm stationed here on the very front lines, a mere stone's throw from the border, I've come to fully appreciate the danger posed to the entire world by the Canadians.


----------



## WizarDru (Mar 4, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> X-Box is the superior technical system in that it has support for 5.1 surround sound in addition to supporting a wide variety of HDTV format options.
> 
> X-Box has it's share of good games though so either one is a viable option. If you have a HD-TV and a 5.1 surround sound system, it's the X-Box.




Actually, all three major systems have support for HDTV formats and 5.1 sound.

You can determine which by visiting this site. Xbox currently has the only games that support anything over 480p, with the exception of Gran Tourismo 4, which supports 1080i. Xbox has four games that support 1080i, and a large handful that do 720p. Gamecube boasts that 90% of their first-party games are 480p capable. Many games that don't support HDTV formats do support 16:9 screen size and Dolby IIx or Digital, and some even have DTS support. Just last night, I was playing Metroid Prime 2 and Resident Evil 4 on the cube in 5.1.

Xbox, however, has a clear lead in HDTV support, with the only system delivering 720p games.  We discuss this topic more in depth (HDTV and games) in this thread over here.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Mar 4, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> WizDru on console vs. PC RPGs




That pretty much sums it up, though admitting it's a total disconnect means that I can't actually 'win' the argument.  Damn your calm reasonable response!   

Regardless of which side the OP falls on, though, I'll leave him with this.

The XBox's top exclusive (or greatly delayed release) games aren't RPGs or fantasy of any kind - they're games like the Halo series and Dead or Alive.  Morrowind and Knights of the Old Republic are both available for the PC, provided you have sufficient processor power to run them, perhaps on considerably lowered graphics settings.

The PS2's exclusive games include some type of RPGs and several non-RPG fantasy games, in adition to the wealth of PS1 games.

For fantasy gaming purposes, I think you'll find the PS2 has vastly more options and the only options that you can't get somewhere else.  If you don't like any of those options, the XBox might be a better choice.

Personally, if that's what you decide, I would just spend the $200 or less you'd pay for the Box on a better graphics card for the PC.  You might have to wait a few months for some games, but the best selection of PC-style RPGs is still on the PC, and likely to remain there.


----------



## Vonlok The Bold (Mar 6, 2005)

Where Japanese vs. U.S. RPG's it sounds like the argument comes down mostly to taste.  I think that excellent points were made about Morrowind allowing total choice and freedom, but few memorable characters that play any kind of memorable part in the story.  And also about Balder's gate line of games, having a great story, and characters but very little choice involved.

I'm not a huge fan of most Japanese rpg's like final fantasy, for some of the reasons mentioned, plus that world just doesn't engage me like middle age type fantasy worlds do.  But it is just taste I guess.  I loved the Balder's gate series.  I also loved Morrowind, but acknowledge the weaknesses listed above.

I thought the voices in both Balder's Gate and Morrowind were well done.  The things that each game did, they did well.  Having total freedom in Morrowind adds a sense of involvement in the character you are creating and playing, even if the other characters don't stand out.  The plot in Balder's gate is fun, there are sufficient twists and turns to make it exciting and interesting.

But I come back to PS2 games and think of flash of a character running across the screen jumping about 4 times the chracter's own height into the air, while doing a flip.   Any game that has that as a part of it(many do) automatically drops a notch in my appreciation of it.


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 6, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Great post by WizarDru snipped for length!




Awesome post my man! You have hit the nail on the proverbial head.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Mar 6, 2005)

Very good post, WizarDru.  

Regarding my tastes, though, I recall a quote made by John Carmack a few years ago that still rings true.  "A good game with a bad story is still a good game, and a bad game with a good story is still a bad game."

Games like Final Fantasy X actually remind me of the old laserdisc game Dragon's Lair (made by animation legend Don Bluth); they're not games so much as they are movies where the player occasionally has to fight or take an action so that the movie can proceed.


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 6, 2005)

I can see why some see a game such as FFX is an "interactive movie" but that is selling it terribly short.  There is a strong story element and there are a bunch of movie cutscenes that dominate early on.  As the game continues it becomes much more than that.  It's not as good as FFVI or VI in many respects but the production values and the sense of wonder and attachment that you get with the characters that you get to customize is what makes the game fun.  It is most certainly not Dragon's Lair.

It's not as open as Morrowind, GTA or KotOR but it is something else.

For my money, an RPG is any game where you have direct control over the development of the character/stats or story.  Some games have RPG elements (GTA:SA, NBA Street) yet are not RPGs in the slightest.  There are all different shapes,  sizes and sub-genres (tactical, hack and slash, etc) but they are all still RPGs.

WizarDru did make some very good points above which I essentially agree with.  The kill it and take its stuff motif is part of the gaming culture that extends waaay beyond RPGs.    Some games transcend this and others embrace it.

Personally, I can't wait for future FF games.  They have a new producer (the same who created FF Tactics) which should give the games an even darker direction.


----------



## Arnwyn (Mar 7, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Just last night, I was playing Metroid Prime 2 and Resident Evil 4 on the cube in 5.1.



How'd you manage that? Do you mean Dolby Pro-Logic II?


----------



## WizarDru (Mar 7, 2005)

Correct.  The games themselves are Dolby Pro-Logic II, which my receiver then decodes the matrix surround channels out of the original signal, making it 5.1.  The Pro-Logic II technology (and IIx, which is 7.1) extracts all the channels out of 2 inputs.

My wiring is actually slighly convuluted: I have all my inputs for my video games going straight to the TV, and then a digital output to my reciever, which then decodes the signal for the speakers.  It works out well.

Sound support for games varies wildly.  Xbox is all over the Dolby Digital with 261 titles supporting it...more than the gamecube and ps/2 combined, who both support only Dolby ProLogic II with 98 and 128 games, respectively.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 7, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Actually, all three major systems have support for HDTV formats and 5.1 sound.
> 
> You can determine which by visiting this site. Xbox currently has the only games that support anything over 480p, with the exception of Gran Tourismo 4, which supports 1080i. Xbox has four games that support 1080i, and a large handful that do 720p. Gamecube boasts that 90% of their first-party games are 480p capable. Many games that don't support HDTV formats do support 16:9 screen size and Dolby IIx or Digital, and some even have DTS support. Just last night, I was playing Metroid Prime 2 and Resident Evil 4 on the cube in 5.1.
> 
> Xbox, however, has a clear lead in HDTV support, with the only system delivering 720p games.  We discuss this topic more in depth (HDTV and games) in this thread over here.




Thanks for that link. Very useful. I see that XBox still has the superior goods in terms of sound and vision according to the number of titles. But it's good to know about the other stuff.

I've also heard that the X-Box is easier to design for. Apparnelty to make it backward compatible, PS2 had to have a lot of things changed for it. Those were only concerns when both started and by the time the X-Box came around, PS2 already had it's "1st" generation of games out there, and the "1st" generation of X-Box games sucked hard. Kabuki Warriors or Azure anyone?


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 7, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Those were only concerns when both started and by the time the X-Box came around, PS2 already had it's "1st" generation of games out there, and the "1st" generation of X-Box games sucked hard. Kabuki Warriors or Azure anyone?



Luckily, that only applied when the Xbox was new, and not now!  Of course, the Xbox running on essentially a Windows-like OS has got to help with porting games to that system too, so you're probably quite right about it being easier to work with for most third party game developers.

Despite what I posted earlier in this thread, I'm leaning more towards a PS2 at the moment (but I'm constantly waffling between the two) and will probably get one with my bonus this month, but when the price comes down, I'll probably pick up an Xbox too.


----------



## Arnwyn (Mar 8, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Correct.  The games themselves are Dolby Pro-Logic II, which my receiver then decodes the matrix surround channels out of the original signal, making it 5.1.  The Pro-Logic II technology (and IIx, which is 7.1) extracts all the channels out of 2 inputs.



Ah, I see. I just call it DPLII - when people say 5.1, I automatically think "Dolby Digital". Bad me!

Though I do like what DPLII does with the good old red'n'white cables - the sound test in the Rogue Squadron games is slick.


> Sound support for games varies wildly.  Xbox is all over the Dolby Digital with 261 titles supporting it...more than the gamecube and ps/2 combined, who both support only Dolby ProLogic II with 98 and 128 games, respectively.



Actually, the PS2 also does in-game DTS (which, IMHO, sounds better than DD5.1).

I've seen that HDTV arcade site linked here before, but it's really not that great. The PS2 section, for example, is woefully out of date and in many cases flat-out _wrong_.

Not helpful.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Mar 9, 2005)

Um, I play fun games, don't play un-fun games.  What console they're on doesn't make a difference.

That said, I don't own an X-Box.  I might pick one up for Jade Empire though.  Bioware is one of only two companies I'll buy a game from cold.


----------



## Eosin the Red (Mar 10, 2005)

I loved BGI & BGII on the computer      On the other hand, I can't seem to interest myself at all in Anime - I have borrowed Witchhunter Robin, Noir, & Ghost in the Shell from my buddy and could not sit through more than an episode or two of each (GitS got about 45 minutes from me and seemed the most interesting but still not enough for me to spend my time on). The impetus for buying a consule was the failure of my computer to run Knights of the Old Republic.


PS - I sit here looking at my shiney new X-box.

Thanks everyone.


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 11, 2005)

Eosin the Red said:
			
		

> PS - I sit here looking at my shiney new X-box.
> 
> Thanks everyone.



Good stuff.  Kickin' with KotOR & KotOR 2 will keep you busy for some time.


----------



## reanjr (Mar 11, 2005)

Vonlok The Bold said:
			
		

> I'm looking to buy a console system too.  My reasons are odd.  I am buying it primarily to get Dance Dance revolution so I can get in shape(hopefully in a fun way.)  Both systems currently have that title available.  I will most likely get an x-box, but I don't know for sure.




It should be noted then that Dance Dance Revolution Ultra Mix (XBox) is generally considered the best of the many DDR incarnations.  And you can purchase new music over XBox live for a reasonable price (considering the alternative is to purchase a new DDR game with a new soundtrack for $20).  Oh, and you can play online with 5 year-old crippled Asian boys if you are the humble sort who likes to lose.


----------



## Vonlok The Bold (Mar 15, 2005)

Thanks for the info.  I just bought the X-Box, dance pad, and DDR Ultramix2 this weekend.  I also rented Prince Of Persia from the store.  I'm having fun so far.  Thanks.


----------

