you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 10 hours ago* (19 children)

Not saying it was a bad console but It didn't change anything in gaming

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 10 hours ago* (11 children)

    The article does make some interesting arguments about the changes, here are some excerpts:

    That hard drive was particularly important. Players could save progress without purchasing memory cards, while games could use the storage for caching data and reducing loading times. Owners could even rip music CDs to the machine and listen to their own soundtracks in supported games. The built-in Ethernet port was another forward-looking decision, even if Microsoft's online service was still some way off.

    First-person shooters had already enjoyed tremendous success on consoles, particularly with GoldenEye 007 on the Nintendo 64, but Halo helped establish a new standard for the genre. While it wasn't the first console shooter to use two analogue sticks, its intuitive approach to movement and aiming, with the left stick controlling movement and the right controlling the camera, helped establish the control scheme that would become standard across the industry. Combined with recharging shields and carefully structured combat encounters, Halo would influence first-person shooters for years afterward.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] [S] 12 points 10 hours ago (1 child)

    Thank you for reading!

    An odd thing to thank these days ...but often people check a headline, or skim things. It means a lot to me :),

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 10 hours ago (7 children)

    Saturn already had SegaNet in 1996 Famicom had the disk system in 1986 N64 had 64DD Ps2 had a hard drive before Xbox Halo was announced for mac/pc with ps2 port to follow until Microsoft bought Bungie

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 hours ago

    The argument isn’t that it did these things first, it’s that it changed gaming by doing all of them well.

    Being first to do something doesn’t matter if no one uses it. Xbox objectively popularised all of those things in a way no one had done before (at least in the console market), on a massive scale.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 9 hours ago (5 children)

    The PS/2 did not come with a hard drive standard. Few ps/2 games supported the add on hard drive.

    Seganet was a modem, not an ethernet port.

    The famicom disk system was proprietary floppy discs, not a hard drive.

    The 64DD was a proprietary floppy disc like a zip disc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 hours ago (4 children)

    The OP frames storage, networking/online services, and a single studio's game design decisions as revolutionary.

    These were not new ideas. I never really considered Xbox as a innovative console

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 hours ago

    You didn't read the article.

    "The article does make some interesting arguments about the changes, here are some excerpts:

    That hard drive was particularly important. Players could save progress without purchasing memory cards, while games could use the storage for caching data and reducing loading times.

    "Without purchasing"

    "Caching data and reduce load times"

    Having to purchase an extra storage device that was slow and with extremely limited space is not equivalent to including a hard drive.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

    Its wildly known persistent storage was a first in consoles tha is to the Xbox. DirectX also standardized quite a bit with gaming, also developers have quoted many times by saying the dev kits and developer experience were elevated by the Xbox team.

    It changed quite a bit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

    yeah, even in the 360/ps3 times I think it was common knowledge that developers much preferred the 360 because of how fucked it was to code for the PS3 in comparison. Japanese devs rarely beat the spaghetti code allegations back in the day, I'm sure it's better nowadays

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 hours ago (1 child)

    The PS3 was hell to code for. It was a completely unique architecture unlike anything else on the market. In a time where multi threading was in its infancy, the Cell processor required coding for 7 different threads on less individually capable cores. It had advantages like being able to dedicate entire pipelines to specific cores, preventing things from getting bogged down fewer main threads, but it required very specific development that wasn't useful anywhere else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago

    yeah I doubt many developers were able to completely wrap their head around such complications. If I recall correctly there were games, like Crysis and RDR, that even ran at resolutions lower than 720p in order to meet a viable framerate (which still meant occasional dips to the 15-20s)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 8 hours ago

    It was the first to implement a standard online service with matchmaking, partially thanks to the built-in ethernet port. First to include a hard drive. Hell, you could rip CDs to the thing and play your own music in some games. And, I mean, fuckin' HALO, particularly Halo 2. They built Xbox Live for the Xbox 360 off of what Bungie had built for the game. Not to mention the 'standard' controls that literally every shooter on consoles has started with Halo. Hell, it was the first console that supported HD resolutions. The PS5 only exists in the world that the original Xbox helped make.

  • source
  • parent