From here (http://360.advancedmn.com/article.php?artid=11367):

Lost Odyssey is going to be epic.
Written By: Matt Furtado

If you thought that three DVD's for Blue Dragon was excessive prepare yourself for this. During a meeting at this year's Tokyo Game Show, Hironobu Sakaguchi revealed that his next upcoming title will be epic in many ways. Sakaguchi revealed that Lost Odyssey will span over four DVDs. The game uses a mixture of CG and real-time cut scenes to illustrate the storyline. The game is expected to last between 40-50hrs.

The Lost Odyssey team is planning to ship the title with a multiple language option, including English and Japanese. However, the voice animations for the characters will be synched with the English voice work, even the Japanese version. Sakaguchi stated that the Japanese are use to not having voices matched up to lip movement because of all the western films that have now made there way into Japan. By using English as the main voice work of the title, Sakaguchi wanted to show the English speaking audience his appreciation for their support.

Four discs. Yikes.

and?

I know I'll buy it. if this holds anybody back then sucks to be them. also this doesnt validate any of sonys reason for games on bluray

and?

I know I'll buy it. if this holds anybody back then sucks to be them. also this doesnt validate any of sonys reason for games on bluray

Really, really?

It's OK

Meh, doesn't bother me I played RPGs on multiple discs more than once back in the day what's the big deal doing it now? I honestly like the multiple disc approach for nostalgia's sake, it really feels like you've reached a milestone when you get that insert disc screen, almost brings a tear to my remembering the good old day of FFVII, VIII, and IX.

I just thought it was interesting.

Funny thing I noticed - each disc will still have more gameplay than all of Heavenly Sword. :P

I just thought it was interesting.

Funny thing I noticed - each disc will still have more gameplay than all of Heavenly Sword. :P

People really need to stop comparing the length of RPGs to action games (especially since they're just doing it to bash Sony and Heavenly Sword half the time), it's just an ignorant comparison to make. Forget apples and oranges, it's apples and prime rib you're comparing.

From what I saw at the TGS presentation, this games looks like it will have a TON of CGI cutscenes. They had a cut scene every 2 minutes during the demo. I'm pretty psyched for the game based on the art style, but damn, those emo-heroes need to go and the combat system really ought to be up graded a bit. Still, as long as the story is good, the game should be fun. I ought to be done with Mass Effect by then :P

From what I saw at the TGS presentation, this games looks like it will have a TON of CGI cutscenes. They had a cut scene every 2 minutes during the demo. I'm pretty psyched for the game based on the art style, but damn, those emo-heroes need to go and the combat system really ought to be up graded a bit. Still, as long as the story is good, the game should be fun. I ought to be done with Mass Effect by then :P

Correct. I thought that the TGS presentation was disappointingly dull. It seems that they tried to be a little innovative with the combat system, but the rest is the same old same old.

bring it on! all this crying about mutliple discs is just silly. You get up to replace a disc every now and then...whooopie. It's not like the 360 is 4 blocks away. Use the time to for for a drink or piss at the same time. I'm all about getting my monies worth out of a game...GOW at less then 10hrs long on one DVD...WASTE of money. 40-50 hrs for the same dollar....I don't care if it's on 10 dvd's...I'm getting more for my money and occasional excercise :)

joking aside, I remember the days of Ultima games on commodore using 5 1/4 floppies. You think 2 or 4 dvd's was hard. Try over a dozen, and every time you entered or exited a city/dungeon it was a different disc....old skool! don't even get my started on the old Cassette games with analog counters.

I don't think that anybody is crying about multiple disks. I don't think that anybody cares how many disks there are, except maybe the consoles' marketers. They think that we ought to care.

and?

I know I'll buy it. if this holds anybody back then sucks to be them. also this doesnt validate any of sonys reason for games on bluray

No validation? Lost Odyssey would probably be on one BD-25.

I'm just sayin' is all. I don't mind reliving the good ol' FF7 days.

Lost Odyssey cannot arrive soon enough.

"(especially since they're just doing it to bash Sony and Heavenly Sword half the time)"

You say that like Heavenly Sword is good enough to not deserve bashing. :) Crap is crap, regrardless of what console it is on. The 360 has it's fair share of utter garbage as well.

"(especially since they're just doing it to bash Sony and Heavenly Sword half the time)"

You say that like Heavenly Sword is good enough to not deserve bashing. :) Crap is crap, regrardless of what console it is on. The 360 has it's fair share of utter garbage as well.

Why is Heavenly Sword crap? It's got great gameplay with great controls, a good story, beautiful graphics, great sound design, the only problem is it's a little on the short side. And these aren't just my opinions this is primarily what the reviews are saying and the consumer reaction.

thread resurrection

Lost Odyssey Main Theme:
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/138976.html
This is incredible. A search for "Nobuo Uematsu" "Firenze 2007" will turn up more great music.

Lost Odyssey Japanese TVCM:
http://www.gamersyde.com/stream_5527_en.html

edit:
TGS07 Trailer (old):
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/25302.html

I read somewhere that there will be around 20 hours of cgi cutscenes. So yeah once you figure that in your looking at around 20-30 hours of gameplay which makes it far less epic than it would initially appear.

I read somewhere that there will be around 20 hours of cgi cutscenes. So yeah once you figure that in your looking at around 20-30 hours of gameplay which makes it far less epic than it would initially appear.

20 hours of CG cutscenes? I find that hard to believe. 20 hours of total cut-scenes maybe (In game stuff plus CG), but 20 hours hours of CG cutscenes rendered in 720p would take up 4 DVDs or more on it's own.

I read somewhere that there will be around 20 hours of cgi cutscenes. So yeah once you figure that in your looking at around 20-30 hours of gameplay which makes it far less epic than it would initially appear.

Are you saying that the game is 30 hours long and cutscenes take up 20 of them?

Also, most all of the cutscenes of seen from this game so far are definitely using the in-game engine instead of pre-rendered CGI.

"Also, most all of the cutscenes of seen from this game so far are definitely using the in-game engine instead of pre-rendered CGI."

If that were the case, then the game wouldn't be 4 discs. :)

"Also, most all of the cutscenes of seen from this game so far are definitely using the in-game engine instead of pre-rendered CGI."

If that were the case, then the game wouldn't be 4 discs. :)

Please do explain. Just because a cutscene uses the in-game engine it doesn't mean it doesn't take up a lot of space. This game is supposed to be massive and let's face it DVD-9 is not the greatest medium for storing mass amounts of HD content (and by that I mean cutscenes). It makes perfect sense that a cutscene heavy RPG as like Lost Odyssey would take up 4 discs.

Conversely if the game had 20 hours of CGI cutscenes that would be equivalent to packing the movie Cars, in high-definition, into the game 10 times. And I promise you 20 hours of high-definition CGI cutscenes are not gonna fit on 4 DVD-9s, let alone 20 hours of CGI cutscenes PLUS the game itself.

We can more than likely expect a lot of beautiful CGI cut-scenes but anyone expecting the majority of the cutscenes to not use the in-game engine are just setting themselves up for disappointment.

My bad on the cgi cutscene thing I went back and read the November EGM again and it said that 20 of the 50 hours are dedicated to "cinematics" whatever they mean by that probably a mix of in-game engine and cgi. Still though 20 freakin hours of cutscenes!? Does this tick anybody off other than me? Thats longer than it took me to beat Mass Effect for gods sake.

My bad on the cgi cutscene thing I went back and read the November EGM again and it said that 20 of the 50 hours are dedicated to "cinematics" whatever they mean by that probably a mix of in-game engine and cgi. Still though 20 freakin hours of cutscenes!? Does this tick anybody off other than me? Thats longer than it took me to beat Mass Effect for gods sake.

No, actually it excites me. I enjoy playing RPGs but the fact of the matter is I only play Japanese RPGs for the story. Not that I don't enjoy Japanese RPGs but some parts of the gameplay do get tedious and if I don't have a juicy piece of the plot to look forward to after spending and hour and half slogging my way through random battles in a dungeon then I lose interest. As long as the games story is good I will sit by and enjoy every delectable moment of story goodness I can, if the story sucks I won't even play the game. Blue Dragon is a prime example of this, good gameplay but lame story.

I'd certainly rather play it on one disc, but if its good I'll be switching out discs with the best of em. Not sure if this one is going to be good yet though.

I'd certainly rather play it on one disc, but if its good I'll be switching out discs with the best of em. Not sure if this one is going to be good yet though.

It looks like Sakaguchi is actually focusing on making a great game again like he did when he was making Final Fantasy as opposed to the pile that was Blue Dragon. I'd say this time we'll be getting a good and epic story and compelling characters. Uematsu seems to be putting more of an effort into the music for this one as well, so maybe we'll get music that will really evoke some powerful emotions like in the Final Fantasy days unlike with Blue Dragon where we got half good music and half absolute crap like that annoying as hell boss theme.

I just thought it was interesting.

Funny thing I noticed - each disc will still have more gameplay than all of Heavenly Sword. :P

With your extremely biased PS3/Bluray post history Im sure it **IS** very interesting to you.

After reading your post history I doubt it would surprise anyone why you ran here to the Xbox forum to post this "news"..

It looks like Sakaguchi is actually focusing on making a great game again like he did when he was making Final Fantasy as opposed to the pile that was Blue Dragon. I'd say this time we'll be getting a good and epic story and compelling characters. Uematsu seems to be putting more of an effort into the music for this one as well, so maybe we'll get music that will really evoke some powerful emotions like in the Final Fantasy days unlike with Blue Dragon where we got half good music and half absolute crap like that annoying as hell boss theme.

I just listened to Friday's 1up Yours podcast and apparently they were saying that the last version of the game that they saw, about a month ago, was not impressive. He said it has tons of potential, but it wasn't quite there yet. Who knows, maybe they just needed to tie up the loose ends.

I remember back in the day that multiple discs was awesome...FF7-9 people thought were so cool because they took up so many discs. Then the PS2 hit and multiple discs was used to bash the Gamecube because many games on the cube that required it could fit on one awesomely huge disc on the PS2.

I remember back in the day that multiple discs was awesome...FF7-9 people thought were so cool because they took up so many discs. Then the PS2 hit and multiple discs was used to bash the Gamecube because many games on the cube that required it could fit on one awesomely huge disc on the PS2.

That's because on the PS1 there was no larger available medium for games than CDs and the fact that PS1 games were so huge that some of them were taking up multiple discs was very impressive. Now though we have larger mediums than DVD-9 such as HD-DVD and Blu-Ray so if a game is taking up multiple DVDs when it could just as easily fit on one HD-DVD or Blu-Ray it shows the benefit of HD discs over DVDs.

Personally I don't care, I can deal with swapping a disc out every now and then it's not that hard. I'll be convinced Blu-Ray is a huge advantage when that space is used to implement higher resolution textures and other technically impressive things that can't be done with DVD other than "Look this super long RPG has to go on multiple discs when it would only take one if it were on Blu-Ray". I think MGS4 will be the first game to really show that advantage.

Now though we have larger mediums than DVD-9 such as HD-DVD and Blu-Ray so if a game is taking up multiple DVDs when it could just as easily fit on one HD-DVD or Blu-Ray it shows the benefit of HD discs over DVDs.


I entirely disagree with this. 360 games could not be "easily fit" on high def discs, because the 360 came out prior to the introduction of those discs. I have both systems and I look forward to seeing what some people might do with bluray, but you can't blame the 360, because HD wasn't available when they launched. Moreover, the delivered a much cheaper device by using DVDs.

Personally I don't care, I can deal with swapping a disc out every now and then it's not that hard. I'll be convinced Blu-Ray is a huge advantage when that space is used to implement higher resolution textures and other technically impressive things that can't be done with DVD other than "Look this super long RPG has to go on multiple discs when it would only take one if it were on Blu-Ray". I think MGS4 will be the first game to really show that advantage.

Id say alot of people agree with this. I know its only a year into it.. but so far 360 games are pretty much equal to PS3 games.

Forgetting shyt like HD cutscenes or 7.1 lossless sound.. Until BR PS3 titles start to show some real difference in game length or quality.. its hard to justify the extra expense, extra delays, and extra $$$ it takes to go BR disc on a console.

I for one would expected and would have loved a PS3 with its current features.. starting at $399, available 2 years ago for xmas 2005, and was down to $299 or lower today.

I think it would have really been a better fit for gamers of **THIS** generation. 3 years from now.. when the next generation of consoles start to popup.. I think the inclusion of HD discs will be absolutely necessary.

.. its hard to justify the extra expense, extra delays, and extra $$$ it takes to go BR disc on a console.


Unless you (gasp) actually use your bluray player to play blurays.

I can't wait for this game... how can you go against the Gooch?!?!

From what I've read, this game is basically a next-gen version of Final Fantasy IV, the main character is named Kaim (Kane from FFIV), theres a cranky old guy named Sed (Cid), there are even to mage twins (Polom and Porum!!!)...

I miss JRPGs.. there has been a real lack of them so far in this gen of consoles with Eternal Sonata being the only one of note so far...


PS. I LOVE the fact that there are multiple discs... takes me back to the PS1 days when I used to love seeing the multiple disc icon on the back of the cd case...

PS. I LOVE the fact that there are multiple discs... takes me back to the PS1 days when I used to love seeing the multiple disc icon on the back of the cd case...

Agreed, if this were an action game or a shooter or something having multiple discs would be damn near unacceptable but with an RPG it feels more nostalgic.

I entirely disagree with this. 360 games could not be "easily fit" on high def discs, because the 360 came out prior to the introduction of those discs. I have both systems and I look forward to seeing what some people might do with bluray, but you can't blame the 360, because HD wasn't available when they launched. Moreover, the delivered a much cheaper device by using DVDs.

That doesn't change the fact that the ability to store 2.5x more data on a Blu-Ray than a dual-layer DVD isn't an advantage. 360 games could very well "easily fit" on a high-def disc, just because MS launched before they had the capability to implement a high-def disc drive does not make it any different. I'm not blaming the 360 nor am I saying they should have gone the high-def disc route, I'm just saying it is a potential advantage having that extra storage, and as I previously stated we haven't seen that storage put to proper use so I'm not defending Sony's use of Blu-Ray I'm simply stating facts. Regardless let's not let this turn into a Sony vs. MS thread, and I'm not implying either of us are doing so I can just see this heading south very fast.

That doesn't change the fact that the ability to store 2.5x more data on a Blu-Ray than a dual-layer DVD isn't an advantage.

No one is saying its not an advantage. First and foremost its an advantage because you can play Blurays, which I enjoy immensely. After that... well after that there may be some minor game advantages.

Ultimately, MS's mistake was not the media, but the hard drive. Going with DVD is not a problem (computer games still do this), but if you do do this you simply must put hard drives on all of your systems. By NOT putting a hard drive in every system, MS has put pressure on game developers to fit EVERYTHING on one DVD. If they had simply put a hard drive in every system and allowed for the possibility to install some of the game on the hard drive, games could include multiple DVDs, but only one game disc would need to be in to play the game (no switching). This is precisely how PC games work. I simply cannot understand why MS did not do this.

This would have also solved other problems that have developed due to the fact that ALL data must be read off of a DVD, such as the horrid texture popping in Mass Effect.

No one is saying its not an advantage. First and foremost its an advantage because you can play Blurays, which I enjoy immensely. After that... well after that there may be some minor game advantages.

Ultimately, MS's mistake was not the media, but the hard drive. Going with DVD is not a problem (computer games still do this), but if you do do this you simply must put hard drives on all of your systems. By NOT putting a hard drive in every system, MS has put pressure on game developers to fit EVERYTHING on one DVD. If they had simply put a hard drive in every system and allowed for the possibility to install some of the game on the hard drive, games could include multiple DVDs, but only one game disc would need to be in to play the game (no switching). This is precisely how PC games work. I simply cannot understand why MS did not do this.

This would have also solved other problems that have developed due to the fact that ALL data must be read off of a DVD, such as the horrid texture popping in Mass Effect.

Agreed, this is what pisses me off more than anything about the 360, the RRoD even takes a backseat to the harddrive issue. It pisses me off that MS put what was a essentially an incredibly gimped (read harddriveless) console on the market forcing game developers to develop games without being able to use the harddrive for caching data, that was one of the greatest things about the original X-Box last generation and they took it away. As far as I'm concerned game developers should be allowed to program games with the assumption the player has a harddrive and put a sticker or something on the box that say "Requires harddrive to play" because it's not fair that all 360 owners get screwed because a small minority cheaped out and bought the core system.

Unless you (gasp) actually use your bluray player to play blurays.

Maybe you need to reread the article that said only 30% of the next gen console owners even realize their console is capable of HD graphics and video.

Trust outside of us geeky people on AVS.. things like Bluray are very very UN popular.

Ultimately, MS's mistake was not the media, but the hard drive.

What harddrive issue? There is a harddrive either installed OR available on every 360 sold to date. You guys are quick to forget MS originated the idea of a HDD installed in every console. MS already did this 6+ years ago with the original Xbox. They didnt forget or mistake to include the HDD.

Plain and simple including a HDD in every original Xbox led to the console never being profitable. So what they learned from including a HDD in every console LAST generation is two important lessons.

1) A large part of their market could care less about the HDD. Game saves were very important.. but outside of that.. many of gamers never bothered to use the harddrive for anything else. Even now (outside of AVS) how many people do you think really access the ability to store pictures, media, files on the Premium 360's HDD. None of my friends outside of this forum even care about that. They do one thing with their 360 and thats game.

2) Not forcing every console to include a HDD versus including a HDD in every console has more benefits in the long run. Mainly in that it allows them to price their core (or now Arcade) model absolutely as cheap as possible.. while still keeping the console profitable. When the core is priced at the all important $199 or lower price points in the very near future.. You will see how important the choice NOT to force a HDD on every system is. The Arcade version of the core is already outperforming its expected goals. Priced at $279 with mem card and games already is the best bang for buck in this generation of gaming. (Thats gaming.. not movie watching or multimedia function)

For those not up to date on console sales.. 80% of the 220million PS1 & PS2's were sold at $199 or less. Take a second and read that again. 4 out of every 5 Playstations ever sold were only when it priced at $199 and lower. I'm pretty sure the same even goes with the PSP.

With the PS3 starting out at $599.. and needing 2 price drops and a major loss of backwards compatibility to hit $399. Exactly how long do you think its gonna take the PS3 to hit that magical price point of $199 or less where most of its market lies? The PS3 may be the great technology and future proof.. but it has simply priced itself out of its own market. 80% of the exact market that purchased Playstations of any kind before it WONT be able to afford the PS3 until somewhere around the 4th year of the consoles life.

My point is I'm not saying havin a HDD in every console is a bad thing. But what I am saying is MS not including a HDD in every system is a purposely thought, carefully planned execution.

If you are looking for maximum performance.. then get a PC. The 360 simply isnt and never was intended to that.. The 3 distinct flavours of the 360 is designed to provide a solution for everyone. And the modular design and ability to upgrade ultimately shows the 360 was purposely designed to always provide the best "bang for the buck" console experience among its competitors THIS generation.

That said.. given the NEXT generation of consoles. Expected to hit around 2010.. I could see the inclusion of a HDD and possibly HD disc built into every console MS manufacters. Mainly because the technology would be more accepted and actually used by the major market.. and the technology would be cheap enough that they could still sell the console at its lowest possible price point and still remain profitable.

What harddrive issue?

The harddrive issue where MS gimped one of their SKUs and overpriced what should have been a $40 harddrive (20gb) AT MOST and in effect told game developers "Hey remember how you had that neat little harddrive you could cache data off of last generation to stream data quicker and reduce load times? Well now since about 5% of our user base doesn't have one you can't program with that in mind sorry".

Obviously the 360 isn't touted to be as good as a hardcore gaming rig but that doesn't mean it wasn't ignorant to take the harddrive away from the core model and then overprice the individual drives, it's about getting the most performance you can for your money and cutting off access to the harddrive (which only a small percentage of 360 owners don't have) for developers is downright stupid. Especially when you did it last gen, and your competitor is doing it this gen, and if you don't think a harddrive makes a difference then look at Oblivion: the load times are about twice as long on the 360 version because it's missing the harddrive access. Think about that sometime when your stuck in one of Mass Effects ungodly loading elevators for half a day.

BK.. sorry I had just edited my post before you replied. Nothing really new said on my part.. but it goes more into detail on why NOT including a HDD was a good thing in my opinion..

Also you make a great point. Theres abosolutely nothing stopping MS from dropping the price on the 20gig HDD to something very reasonable ($40 as you said) and THEN requiring the HDD to play certain games in the future. As I remember correctly this was already done in previous consoles. I specifically remember buying the memory upgrade necessary to play certain N64 games.

I'd still argue aiming to give your customers the combination of the overall lowest price.. the best bang for the buck.. and the option to upgrade later on a console.. would ALWAYS more appealing to your vast majority of youre market audience than including every bell&whistle up front and then forcefully charging the majority of your market for features many may or may not use.

BK.. sorry I had just edited my post before you replied. Nothing really new said on my part.. but it goes more into detail on why NOT including a HDD was a good thing in my opinion..

Also you make a great point. Theres abosolutely nothing stopping MS from dropping the price on the 20gig HDD to something very reasonable ($40 as you said) and THEN requiring the HDD to play certain games in the future. As I remember correctly this was already done in previous consoles. I specifically remember buying the memory upgrade necessary to play certain N64 games.

I'd still argue aiming to give your customers the combination of the overall lowest price.. the best bang for the buck.. and the option to upgrade later on a console.. would ALWAYS more appealing to your vast majority of youre market audience than including every bell&whistle up front and then forcefully charging the majority of your market for features many may or may not use.

I couldnt disagree with you more about the hard drive. They should have included it, it was included in their last generation system, and it IS hampering developers. End of story. JMO.

Your relentless defending of the core (and everything else xbox for that matter) is just laughable in my opinion. If you provided even a little bit of balanced criticism of Xbox in ANY of your posts, it might be a little easier to take you seriously.

Maybe you need to reread the article that said only 30% of the next gen console owners even realize their console is capable of HD graphics and video.

Trust outside of us geeky people on AVS.. things like Bluray are very very UN popular.

Ya, according to that NPD report, only 30% of 360 owners know that it does HD. Would you then conclude that HD graphics are not one of the major reasons people buy 360s. Didn't think so. I'm not sure how accurate those specific results are, but I'm certain that many people have bought 360s and PS3s for HD games and blurays.

Lost Odyssey Winter 07 Japanese Trailer HD:
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/28603.html

Lost Odyssey Winter 07 Japanese Trailer HD:
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/28603.html

Trailer looks cool. I heard on a recent EGM podcast that the game is basically a complete ripoff of final fantasy IV. Instead of the main character Kain, you have Kaim. Also, instead of Cid, you have an airship flying Sed. There is also a twin duo similar to Palom and Poron.

And you know what? I don't care. I'd love to see an updated ripoff of FFIV. That was one of my favorite games of all time.

Trailer looks cool. I heard on a recent EGM podcast that the game is basically a complete ripoff of final fantasy IV. Instead of the main character Kain, you have Kaim. Also, instead of Cid, you have an airship flying Sed. There is also a twin duo similar to Palom and Poron.

And you know what? I don't care. I'd love to see an updated ripoff of FFIV. That was one of my favorite games of all time.Yep, a previous poster also mentioned Cid, Palom and Porom. It is good to see others who can and will appreciate the connections to other games in the FF series.

small sidenote: I had been gaming long before FFIV, but that was the game that made me obsessive about RPGs for some reason; even the music from FFIV remains awesome. I cannot wait for the DS remake of FFIV.

you guys are making me all teary eyed been playing these since I stayed up all night at my cousins as a kid playing FF1 when it first came out.

Much to wife's horror I have been considering replaying/playing all of the FF games from 1 to 10. Am I correct in assuming the easiest way to do this, and they are all available, on a playstation 2?

you guys are making me all teary eyed been playing these since I stayed up all night at my cousins as a kid playing FF1 when it first came out.

Much to wife's horror I have been considering replaying/playing all of the FF games from 1 to 10. Am I correct in assuming the easiest way to do this, and they are all available, on a playstation 2?Hah, I am in the midst of replaying I-X myself. Right now I am in the middle of IX. New games always put the replaying project on hold.

If you can read Japanese, then FFIII would still not be available for playing on the PS2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Final_Fantasy_media#Compilations_and_collections

I used emulators to play through every one except X. This may be controversial to some, so I will type no more.

Ya, according to that NPD report, only 30% of 360 owners know that it does HD. Would you then conclude that HD graphics are not one of the major reasons people buy 360s. Didn't think so. I'm not sure how accurate those specific results are, but I'm certain that many people have bought 360s and PS3s for HD games and blurays.

I would absolutely conclude one of the major reasons people buy 360s is NOT for the HD graphics.

One of the major reasons they buy it to play the next gen games.

The 360 is still capable of next gen graphics and gameplay when viewed in SD mode. Connect your 360 with SD connection. Then pop in a copy of NBA Live 08. Pop in a copy of NBA Live 05. You will still get a much upgraded graphical EXPERIENCE.. even though the pixel count is essentially still 480i. Theres alot more to next gen graphics that just pure resolution. As we've seen already many of the current titles arent even utilizing true HD resolutions. But the games still look spectacular and the visuals are much improved.

Out of the 20 or so 360 owners I know in person.. in reallife.. outside of this forum. I'd guess only 10 of them have HDTVs.. and 5 of those never bothered to hook up the HD component cables.. they were using the regular RCA composite connection. I have personally switched 3 different 360's in 3 different homes from composite to component myself. And im not making this up. Check my post history.

You simply cant play MOST of todays most popular and best selling titles without a 360 (Halo3 anyone??). Just because the 360 is an HD enabled device doesnt mean the majority of people are using it that way. How could you read the NPD article and not understand the point. That is exactly what they were concluding.

You need to read up more on exactly how much HD is being using homes. HD is nowhere near as popular and as present as you think. Even with the amazing sales of HDTV over the past couple of years.. the majority of HDTV buyers (especially women) are simply more interested in the slimness and contemporary look of flat screen televisions than they are with how many pixels are shown on the screen.

Research everywhere points to most HD enabled homes (those with an HDTV and HD cable/satellite) still do not have setups connected correctly or dont bother to watch HD programming when its available. Research also shows even though many people think they may be watching HD.. due to using the wrong cables or watching those SD channels.. what they really are seeing 480i. They just think everything shown on their shiny new FLAT tv is now HD.

The world is alot bigger than AVS.. dont conclude that the conversations you participate in here daily paint a true picture of what the average 360 owner is doing with his or her console. Or even what the average HDTV owner is doing with those sets.

I would absolutely conclude one of the major reasons people buy 360s is NOT for the HD graphics.

One of the major reasons they buy it to play the next gen games.

The 360 is still capable of next gen graphics and gameplay when viewed in SD mode. Connect your 360 with SD connection. Then pop in a copy of NBA Live 08. Pop in a copy of NBA Live 05. You will still get a much upgraded graphical EXPERIENCE.. even though the pixel count is essentially still 480i. Theres alot more to next gen graphics that just pure resolution. As we've seen already many of the current titles arent even utilizing true HD resolutions. But the games still look spectacular and the visuals are much improved.

Out of the 20 or so 360 owners I know in person.. in reallife.. outside of this forum. I'd guess only 10 of them have HDTVs.. and 5 of those never bothered to hook up the HD component cables.. they were using the regular RCA composite connection. I have personally switched 3 different 360's in 3 different homes from composite to component myself. And im not making this up. Check my post history.

You simply cant play MOST of todays most popular and best selling titles without a 360 (Halo3 anyone??). Just because the 360 is an HD enabled device doesnt mean the majority of people are using it that way. How could you read the NPD article and not understand the point. That is exactly what they were concluding.

You need to read up more on exactly how much HD is being using homes. HD is nowhere near as popular and as present as you think. Even with the amazing sales of HDTV over the past couple of years.. the majority of HDTV buyers (especially women) are simply more interested in the slimness and contemporary look of flat screen televisions than they are with how many pixels are shown on the screen.

Research everywhere points to most HD enabled homes (those with an HDTV and HD cable/satellite) still do not have setups connected correctly or dont bother to watch HD programming when its available. Research also shows even though many people think they may be watching HD.. due to using the wrong cables or watching those SD channels.. what they really are seeing 480i. They just think everything shown on their shiny new FLAT tv is now HD.

The world is alot bigger than AVS.. dont conclude that the conversations you participate in here daily paint a true picture of what the average 360 owner is doing with his or her console. Or even what the average HDTV owner is doing with those sets.

This has been another public service announcement from MS

Again, easier to take your posts seriously if they were anything but positively slanted fanboy rants.

"The first 10 minutes: Lost Odyssey"
http://www.gamersyde.com/news_5604_en.html

"The council has only summoned lieutenant Argonar. Sit down and shut up."
lol

Lost Odyssey Japanese Premiere Pt. 1 HD:
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/28609.html

Lost Odyssey Japanese Premiere Pt. 2 HD:
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/28612.html

This has been another public service announcement from MS

Again, easier to take your posts seriously if they were anything but positively slanted fanboy rants.



That was totally uncalled for. Most of that post could be pulled from the flat panel or DLP forum here. Its been researched and debated about how the % that actually has HD on thier HD set many times in the past two years. There was a study done for how many use their PS3/360 with HD just this year.

Again uncalled for calling someone a fanboy just because you disagree.

Frank I honestly dont mind the name calling. What does dissapointment me is that his reply seems to have very little thought besides "im right, your wrong, youre a fanboy". I could get an equal intelligent reply from an 8 year old.

HD Research is posted all the time on this forum. Very current research that backs up every thing I said about why the average consumer purchases modern HD enabled products, do they then correctly connect that HD equipment in there home when its delivered from the store and if everything does get properly connected do they even bother to watch HD material afterwards..

Simply said.. in most HD enabled homes.. DVD and SDTV still dominate most of the viewing.

Most of the information I view on these HD studies I get right from the very front page of AVS forum when I first log in. So I know I'm not the only one seeing it.

Everything needed to back up what I'm saying about how much HD is actually being used is available on this forum using the search button.

Another tidbit of info.. Since Black Friday 1 out of every 5 360's sold in America is now the core/Arcade system. From what I'm aware the core has NO HDD or HD ability out the box. Although it can be upgraded with cables and seperate HDD.

Every other piece of research I've read before the Arcade SKU was introduced said sales of the core were between 5-10% of overall 360 sales.

Considering there are 4 flavours of the 360.. Arcade, Premium, Halo Edition, Elite.. to see the Arcade version selling at 20% of the 360's sales speaks alot for bottom line pricing versus having all features.

Another tidbit of info.. Since Black Friday 1 out of every 5 360's sold in America is now the core/Arcade system. From what I'm aware the core has NO HDD or HD ability out the box. Although it can be upgraded with cables and seperate HDD.

Every other piece of research I've read before the Arcade SKU was introduced said sales of the core were between 5-10% of overall 360 sales.

Considering there are 4 flavours of the 360.. Arcade, Premium, Halo Edition, Elite.. to see the Arcade version selling at 20% of the 360's sales speaks alot for bottom line pricing versus having all features.

I apology for name calling, I seriously didn't mean to offend you, but I stand by my statement that your posts are absolutely worthless when they are slanted only one way. I'll spend my energy having conversations with people who can actually be critical (and/or positive) about more than one system.

To Frank, wasn't trying to be "uncalled for". Simply stating a fact. Daekwan's post are in fact all slanted positively to MS. Not a little slanted, but in fact all the way slanted. No product is perfect and going on to a forum to defend and/or say only positive things about a product is silly IMO. Your posts are also a bit too slanted for my tastes, but I have noticed that you will at least attempt to be objective.

Also, to just respond one last time to the hard drive issue. Not having hard drives is bad for games and gamers IMO opinion because it is compromising games. I hate waiting in an elevator for 2 minutes (for loading) in Mass Effect and I definitely hate the horrid texture popping. Absolutely unnecessary. Of course not including a hard drive is good for MS, at the very least they get to hit unsuspecting customers with a 100$ hard drive at a later date.

I still say put a sticker on the arcade box that says "Warning some games require a hard drive which is sold separately". Then allow developers access to the HDD for data caching and put on sticker on the game box that says "ATTENTION: Hard drive required to play". It irks me that because 10% of 360 owners are to cheap to buy a premium and MS is overcharging for their harddrive (The 20gb is worth $40 max and the 120gb is worth $60 max, if you don't believe me go shop around for 5400rpm external harddrives) that the other 90% of people who care about getting the best experience possible get screwed.

Another great point is GTA4, the PS3 version is going to be superior, know why? Because every PS3 has a harddrive and every PS3 harddrive is formatted with a large chunk of space for caching data. Thus we can expect a lot faster load times and a lot less pop-in in the PS3 version. So why don't you buy the PS3 version you ask? Because MS has the exclusive rights to the two huge downloadable expansions. So I have to deal with MSs incompetence just so I can play what I consider the complete version of GTA4.

Another great point is GTA4, the PS3 version is going to be superior, know why? Because every PS3 has a harddrive and every PS3 harddrive is formatted with a large chunk of space for caching data

Hard to believe this is a sure thing when the majority of multiplatform games for the PS3 have this same advantage and come up short of other technical issues or what was already mentioned delays to the market for release due to countless different reasons why that is.