WOW Now That is very impressive for Microsoft to achieve this in so little time.

Well I saw this site and it has 290 xbox games that have been confirmed and being develoed. And I thought that was very impressive seeing how little time that Microsoft has had to get the system done. Quite impressive I would say:)

http://www.gorillax.com/xboxgames/main.asp

*yawn*

[Living-In-Clip]

Originally posted by Clyde
*yawn*

Mmm\'hmm. I agree, Clyde.  You\'re one smart chimp.

I don\'t care how many games are in development. Why? Because that means one thing.. Microsoft is following in Sony\'s footsteps with the idea of "quanity over quality". Whatever happened to quality control? I rather have 1 good game every 3 months then 10 horrible games every month. I have said the exact same thing about Sony in previous threads. They can list all these games and who are developing them. But for the most part, alot of these games are goin\' to suck or at least be medicore. And for the ones that aren\'t, they may very well end up bein\' "sleeper hits", because they don\'t have the hype behind them and they are released along side alot of garbage.  Need an example? Look at the PS2 right now. How many titles are must own ? Not very many. Yet there is more then enough games out on the market. Why? Because most of them are just ****ty (H30 anyone? Army Men? Hello?) . Then, of course there is the so called "sleeper hit" which in my opinion has been "Shadows of Destiny".

So, to sum it up. I am not impressed with this so called "achievement". I rather see Sony and MS enforce quality over quanity. Infact, I rather see alot less games and just more quality overall.

Originally posted by Living-In-Clip


Mmm\'hmm. I agree, Clyde.  You\'re one smart chimp.

I don\'t care how many games are in development. Why? Because that means one thing.. Microsoft is following in Sony\'s footsteps with the idea of "quanity over quality". Whatever happened to quality control? I rather have 1 good game every 3 months then 10 horrible games every month. I have said the exact same thing about Sony in previous threads. They can list all these games and who are developing them. But for the most part, alot of these games are goin\' to suck or at least be medicore. And for the ones that aren\'t, they may very well end up bein\' "sleeper hits", because they don\'t have the hype behind them and they are released along side alot of garbage.  Need an example? Look at the PS2 right now. How many titles are must own ? Not very many. Yet there is more then enough games out on the market. Why? Because most of them are just ****ty (H30 anyone? Army Men? Hello?) . Then, of course there is the so called "sleeper hit" which in my opinion has been "Shadows of Destiny".

So, to sum it up. I am not impressed with this so called "achievement". I rather see Sony and MS enforce quality over quanity. Infact, I rather see alot less games and just more quality overall.

I agree 100% they are following in sony steps with all the quantity, but that is all. And what I was trying to stress is that xbox was once called vaporware. And this is there first step into the console world in a small matter of time they managed get so much software in the works. And bye that I am impressed. But as far as the games goes.  I mean there will always be crappy games on consoles. Its a given.

But Ms was suposed to have some sort of quality control on games, but we all know that is BS. Well we can\'t start to judge ms yet, because we don\'t know how they will run their xbox divison. We don\'t know there business strategys, and how they will handle marketing and so on. So lets not assume just because they have a lot of titles they will run xbox the exact same way as sony as ran ps2.

Unfortunately that "quantity" is what common folk will be looking for. Nintendo already went the way of "quality" but unfortunately no one took the bait, so it seems "quantity" is in now. You can see that by the Gamecube\'s launch list: 17 games vs. 2 games at the N64 launch.

In with the new, out with the old, even though new doesn\'t necessarily mean better.

[Living-In-Clip]

Originally posted by Saotome
Unfortunately that "quantity" is what common folk will be looking for. Nintendo already went the way of "quality" but unfortunately no one took the bait, so it seems "quantity" is in now. You can see that by the Gamecube\'s launch list: 17 games vs. 2 games at the N64 launch.

In with the new, out with the old, even though new doesn\'t necessarily mean better.

The general consumer believes that quanity is always better. It is the same as the idea that "bigger is better" ( ) ..Obviously this isn\'t true. But, hey it looks good, when a company can say "we have 300 titles for \'System X\' " instead of "we have 30 titles for System X". It is quite sad actually.

Absolutely. Microsoft has somehow made a console. And a good one at that that has a definite chance of muscling itself into the market for good. This is definitely not an easy task, but they managed somehow.

Just goes to show that with enough money and enough research you can make a \'sure thing\' out of vaporware.

As for the number of titles in development, who really gives a ****? The PC currently has over 2 billion titles in development around the world! Ooooh! *Drooool*

Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Microsoft is following in Sony\'s footsteps with the idea of "quanity over quality". Whatever happened to quality control? I rather have 1 good game every 3 months then 10 horrible games every month.

Not me.  I would rather have the huge selection of games that I can choose from instead of being hand fed a game every three months.  I support the quantity over quality idea.  That was one of the main problems with the N64.  There were just not enough games.

I believe both ways. Quantity is definately a good thing because it gives the gamer a choice over the specific type of game they want to play. It\'s nice to know that if you want to play a "Survival Horror" game, you have a wide array of scenarios and themes to choose from. If they aren\'t all AAA, I don\'t care. As long as they\'re decent games, I can accept that as a price I pay for having the asthetic portion of my gaming tastes delivered.

However, a console needs a strong backing of AAA titles to be considered good in my mind. What good is buying a game for 50 bucks if you only play through it once or twice? A game should keep you comming back for more, long after the original purchase. All the crap games don\'t bother me, since I could care less about them. Do I mind that Army Men is successful? No, because someone.. somewhere.. enjoys them. (As unthinkable as that may seem)

Really, the PSX has over 1000 titles released for it. If even only 20% of those games fall under the AAA or Good catergory.. then I\'ve made a good purchase, since that offers me around 200 games (Usually covering all genres) to choose from.. which is more than I can afford to buy for any one system in a generation.

It takes both Quality AND Quantity to make a good console IMO.

[Bobs_Hardware]

XBOX, thats very lovely, almost as lovely as the amount of games being developed for PS2  

Funny, most of you were saying different when Sony announced that 750 PS2 titles were being developed. Funny how things chnge in so little time.

Eric Jacob

Originally posted by AlteredBeast
Funny, most of you were saying different when Sony announced that 750 PS2 titles were being developed. Funny how things chnge in so little time.

Eric Jacob

Exacly!
LOL!

what I dont like is how all these xbox fanboys are thinking that EVERY xbox game is going to rule...I cant wait till i see a Mickey Mouse game for it

Its as simple as would you rather have 500 RE gun survivor\'s or 10 MGS2\'s?

[Living-In-Clip]

Originally posted by Claypool 2001
what I dont like is how all these xbox fanboys are thinking that EVERY xbox game is going to rule...I cant wait till i see a Mickey Mouse game for it

That isn\'t limited to Xbox fanboys. There has been plenty of threads listing every game in development for the PS2 and how everyone should be excited.