The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
...mine just went through the roof. I just saw in-game footage of Killzone 2 and it was unbelievable. Get a copy of this months PSW, there are about 10 different titles and the majority of them look brilliant. So now I know there's be plenty of titles I want to play, and that isn't even including GTA, I can't wait for PS3, supposing it is £300.
Page:
Blank wrote:
> and you seem to want it just because it's next gen.
Nope as I've already pointed out: "It'sall about the games"
and there's three games I want.
Oblivion - played Morrowind on the Xbox so I know where it's coming from.
Perfect Dark Zero - played the original N64 version and it was godly.
Ghost Recon 3 - Was playing number 2 only yesterday. Fantastic game. Gameplay footage of number 3 looks great.
> It doesn't really matter whether you revealed it or not, I hadn't
> read it either way. I didn't read every post that came before mine.
It'd help you avoid discussions that go onto 4am.
>
> Weigh-up everything like a robot if you wish, I'm after fun on some
> decent next-gen games. Three of which I've already mentioned.
>
> Again, it's hypothetical. So your point doesn't stand.
I've played the fore-runners of each. That's good enough for me.
Certainly more credible than FMV 'demos'.
> and you seem to want it just because it's next gen.
Nope as I've already pointed out: "It'sall about the games"
and there's three games I want.
Oblivion - played Morrowind on the Xbox so I know where it's coming from.
Perfect Dark Zero - played the original N64 version and it was godly.
Ghost Recon 3 - Was playing number 2 only yesterday. Fantastic game. Gameplay footage of number 3 looks great.
> It doesn't really matter whether you revealed it or not, I hadn't
> read it either way. I didn't read every post that came before mine.
It'd help you avoid discussions that go onto 4am.
>
> Weigh-up everything like a robot if you wish, I'm after fun on some
> decent next-gen games. Three of which I've already mentioned.
>
> Again, it's hypothetical. So your point doesn't stand.
I've played the fore-runners of each. That's good enough for me.
Certainly more credible than FMV 'demos'.
Hedfix wrote:
> Fair enough. :)
Yes, I didn't actually want a several hour long argument. You probably didn't either. But hey ho.
> Fair enough. :)
Yes, I didn't actually want a several hour long argument. You probably didn't either. But hey ho.
Hedfix wrote:
> No I'm disagreeing by saying whicher one is out first I would get
> regardless.
But you're getting them all anyway, so your individual plan is irrelevant.
> I'm not pessimistic enoughto assume all next-gen
> gameswill be crap therefore it would be a worthwhile purchase
> whichever console came out first.
Neither am I, funnily enough. It was hypothetical. There will no doubt be some excellent games. And some cack. I was making the point that I want next gen for the good games, and you seem to want it just because it's next gen.
> Actally I revealed that earlier in this thread before the argument
> ever started. Pretty sure, tell you what I'll dig something up in a
> minute.
It doesn't really matter whether you revealed it or not, I hadn't read it either way. I didn't read every post that came before mine.
> I've had brief looks, but nothing jumped out at me.
>
> That's very stubborn of you. I won't draw the obvious conclusion.
Nothing has jumped out at me on the Sony side either, so I wouldn't draw any conclusions.
> Once again I'm not pessimistic enough to assume every next-gen game
> will be crap. They won't be.
>
> Weigh-up everything like a robot if you wish, I'm after fun on some
> decent next-gen games. Three of which I've already mentioned.
Again, it's hypothetical. So your point doesn't stand.
> No I'm disagreeing by saying whicher one is out first I would get
> regardless.
But you're getting them all anyway, so your individual plan is irrelevant.
> I'm not pessimistic enoughto assume all next-gen
> gameswill be crap therefore it would be a worthwhile purchase
> whichever console came out first.
Neither am I, funnily enough. It was hypothetical. There will no doubt be some excellent games. And some cack. I was making the point that I want next gen for the good games, and you seem to want it just because it's next gen.
> Actally I revealed that earlier in this thread before the argument
> ever started. Pretty sure, tell you what I'll dig something up in a
> minute.
It doesn't really matter whether you revealed it or not, I hadn't read it either way. I didn't read every post that came before mine.
> I've had brief looks, but nothing jumped out at me.
>
> That's very stubborn of you. I won't draw the obvious conclusion.
Nothing has jumped out at me on the Sony side either, so I wouldn't draw any conclusions.
> Once again I'm not pessimistic enough to assume every next-gen game
> will be crap. They won't be.
>
> Weigh-up everything like a robot if you wish, I'm after fun on some
> decent next-gen games. Three of which I've already mentioned.
Again, it's hypothetical. So your point doesn't stand.
Fair enough. :)
Hedfix wrote:
> Excuse 1:
>
> Blank wrote:
>
> It was obviously FMV. What's the big deal? It's not in game footage,
> that's because the console wouldn't be out for over a year. It'll
> come soon enough.
Okay, that was honestly not an excuse for Sony. When I saw the footage, I assumed it was FMV because it looked similar to current generation FMV. That's why I was surprised to find people saying "What, that was FMV? Pfft" because I had assumed it was anyway.
"It'll come soon enough" - I can see where you got your remarks from here. But it wasn't intended as a "You wait, Sony will pwn in a couple of months," but just a logical "if the PS3 is released nine months after the 360, expect real footage nine months later."
> Excuse 2:
>
> Again, why is the time so important?
>
> And you think Sony should be quaking in their boots because
> Microsoft
> release two consoles in between theirs? I think they'd be doing
> precisely the opposite. It shows Microsoft are trying to do whatever
> they can to get ahead, whereas Sony can sit back and still do just
> as
> well.
>
> Also this bit about "Sony can sit back and still do just as
> well" is where you waded, intentionally or not, into the
> discussion about whether Sony might be beaten as Nintendo were for
> being inflexible in their approach.
>
> This is why as you kept saying 'that isn't my point' you had infact
> made the point although potentially in an unintentional way and this
> is why the focus shifted to the N64 which was around the time
> Nintendo had definitely lost the lead with no real hope of regaining
> it in the near future.
Yes, I had engaged in the debate, no doubt. Which is why I tried to get it back to the original point - I realised we'd become carried away with this side argument.
These were just my initial thoughts on things, really. When you said that two MS consoles would be released between the PS2 and 3, it seemed like they were trying that bit too hard to get a foot in the door. I'm not mindlessly defending Sony, or excusing them from anything. I'm more loyal to Sony at the moment because they've come up with the goods with the last two consoles; they've provided me with the games I want to play moreso than the competitors. So I assume they will with the next console. It's just like any brand, really. But I still have the Cube for what Sony can't provide (or couldn't) and may get a second next gen console.
I think it's pretty clear we've been arguing somewhat at cross purposes here, and as I do want some sleep tonight I won't be continuing this all night.
> Excuse 1:
>
> Blank wrote:
>
> It was obviously FMV. What's the big deal? It's not in game footage,
> that's because the console wouldn't be out for over a year. It'll
> come soon enough.
Okay, that was honestly not an excuse for Sony. When I saw the footage, I assumed it was FMV because it looked similar to current generation FMV. That's why I was surprised to find people saying "What, that was FMV? Pfft" because I had assumed it was anyway.
"It'll come soon enough" - I can see where you got your remarks from here. But it wasn't intended as a "You wait, Sony will pwn in a couple of months," but just a logical "if the PS3 is released nine months after the 360, expect real footage nine months later."
> Excuse 2:
>
> Again, why is the time so important?
>
> And you think Sony should be quaking in their boots because
> Microsoft
> release two consoles in between theirs? I think they'd be doing
> precisely the opposite. It shows Microsoft are trying to do whatever
> they can to get ahead, whereas Sony can sit back and still do just
> as
> well.
>
> Also this bit about "Sony can sit back and still do just as
> well" is where you waded, intentionally or not, into the
> discussion about whether Sony might be beaten as Nintendo were for
> being inflexible in their approach.
>
> This is why as you kept saying 'that isn't my point' you had infact
> made the point although potentially in an unintentional way and this
> is why the focus shifted to the N64 which was around the time
> Nintendo had definitely lost the lead with no real hope of regaining
> it in the near future.
Yes, I had engaged in the debate, no doubt. Which is why I tried to get it back to the original point - I realised we'd become carried away with this side argument.
These were just my initial thoughts on things, really. When you said that two MS consoles would be released between the PS2 and 3, it seemed like they were trying that bit too hard to get a foot in the door. I'm not mindlessly defending Sony, or excusing them from anything. I'm more loyal to Sony at the moment because they've come up with the goods with the last two consoles; they've provided me with the games I want to play moreso than the competitors. So I assume they will with the next console. It's just like any brand, really. But I still have the Cube for what Sony can't provide (or couldn't) and may get a second next gen console.
I think it's pretty clear we've been arguing somewhat at cross purposes here, and as I do want some sleep tonight I won't be continuing this all night.
>
> Again this whole argument doesn't apply to your particular case,
> because since it started you've revealed that you'll be buying all
> three.
Actally I revealed that earlier in this thread before the argument ever started. Pretty sure, tell you what I'll dig something up in a minute.
------------------------ ------------------- ------------------
27/7/05
Hedfix wrote:
> It does look like I'll only be buying the other two consoles for the
> exclusives.
>
> Then again the more powerful PS3 may win me over like the Xbox won me
> over from the Cube this time around (although I have my doubts about
> the controller).
29/7/05
Hedfix wrote:
> I will get a PS3 as it should run multi-format games better as it's
> slightly more powerful and some third-party will make 360-like
> controllers for it.
>
> At the very least it should have enough exclusives to warrant a
> purchase.
> Again this whole argument doesn't apply to your particular case,
> because since it started you've revealed that you'll be buying all
> three.
Actally I revealed that earlier in this thread before the argument ever started. Pretty sure, tell you what I'll dig something up in a minute.
------------------------ ------------------- ------------------
27/7/05
Hedfix wrote:
> It does look like I'll only be buying the other two consoles for the
> exclusives.
>
> Then again the more powerful PS3 may win me over like the Xbox won me
> over from the Cube this time around (although I have my doubts about
> the controller).
29/7/05
Hedfix wrote:
> I will get a PS3 as it should run multi-format games better as it's
> slightly more powerful and some third-party will make 360-like
> controllers for it.
>
> At the very least it should have enough exclusives to warrant a
> purchase.
Blank wrote:
>
> I've said I don't know about the N64. That's all. Console of the
> past, not the future.
>
Yes and you admit to only having "Brief looks" at 360 games futher down this post.
> But you're agreeing with me - I'm not saying that if both
> consoles have a game, you look into console specs etc, you get the
> one that has the games you like. So if you know the 360 has the games
> you like, you obviously get it.
No I'm disagreeing by saying whicher one is out first I would get regardless. I'm not pessimistic enoughto assume all next-gen gameswill be crap therefore it would be a worthwhile purchase whichever console came out first.
>
> Again this whole argument doesn't apply to your particular case,
> because since it started you've revealed that you'll be buying all
> three.
Actally I revealed that earlier in this thread before the argument ever started. Pretty sure, tell you what I'll dig something up in a minute.
>
> I've had brief looks, but nothing jumped out at me.
That's very stubborn of you. I won't draw the obvious conclusion.
>
>
> No, but if it's next gen for the sake of next gen, then yes.
Once again I'm not pessimistic enough to assume every next-gen game will be crap. They won't be.
Weigh-up everything like a robot if you wish, I'm after fun on some decent next-gen games. Three of which I've already mentioned.
>
> I've said I don't know about the N64. That's all. Console of the
> past, not the future.
>
Yes and you admit to only having "Brief looks" at 360 games futher down this post.
> But you're agreeing with me - I'm not saying that if both
> consoles have a game, you look into console specs etc, you get the
> one that has the games you like. So if you know the 360 has the games
> you like, you obviously get it.
No I'm disagreeing by saying whicher one is out first I would get regardless. I'm not pessimistic enoughto assume all next-gen gameswill be crap therefore it would be a worthwhile purchase whichever console came out first.
>
> Again this whole argument doesn't apply to your particular case,
> because since it started you've revealed that you'll be buying all
> three.
Actally I revealed that earlier in this thread before the argument ever started. Pretty sure, tell you what I'll dig something up in a minute.
>
> I've had brief looks, but nothing jumped out at me.
That's very stubborn of you. I won't draw the obvious conclusion.
>
>
> No, but if it's next gen for the sake of next gen, then yes.
Once again I'm not pessimistic enough to assume every next-gen game will be crap. They won't be.
Weigh-up everything like a robot if you wish, I'm after fun on some decent next-gen games. Three of which I've already mentioned.
Blank wrote:
> Hedfix wrote:
> Funny thing is you claim I've talked a lot of rubbish on the
> original
> topic but if you re-read your earlier posts you'll see you've been
> making excuses for Sony: "It'll be ready when it's ready"
> sort of comments.
>
> No actual examples? I haven't made any excuses for Sony, I've simply
> said time and time again that if it's a choice between the two (or
> the three) then you should weigh up which console will have the
> games, and the type of games, that you prefer. Again, common sense.
------------------- ---------------------- --------------------
Excuse 1:
Blank wrote:
>
> It was obviously FMV. What's the big deal? It's not in game footage,
> that's because the console wouldn't be out for over a year. It'll
> come soon enough.
>
Excuse 2:
> Again, why is the time so important?
>
> And you think Sony should be quaking in their boots because Microsoft
> release two consoles in between theirs? I think they'd be doing
> precisely the opposite. It shows Microsoft are trying to do whatever
> they can to get ahead, whereas Sony can sit back and still do just as
> well.
Also this bit about "Sony can sit back and still do just as well" is where you waded, intentionally or not, into the discussion about whether Sony might be beaten as Nintendo were for being inflexible in their approach.
This is why as you kept saying 'that isn't my point' you had infact made the point although potentially in an unintentional way and this is why the focus shifted to the N64 which was around the time Nintendo had definitely lost the lead with no real hope of regaining it in the near future.
> Hedfix wrote:
> Funny thing is you claim I've talked a lot of rubbish on the
> original
> topic but if you re-read your earlier posts you'll see you've been
> making excuses for Sony: "It'll be ready when it's ready"
> sort of comments.
>
> No actual examples? I haven't made any excuses for Sony, I've simply
> said time and time again that if it's a choice between the two (or
> the three) then you should weigh up which console will have the
> games, and the type of games, that you prefer. Again, common sense.
------------------- ---------------------- --------------------
Excuse 1:
Blank wrote:
>
> It was obviously FMV. What's the big deal? It's not in game footage,
> that's because the console wouldn't be out for over a year. It'll
> come soon enough.
>
Excuse 2:
> Again, why is the time so important?
>
> And you think Sony should be quaking in their boots because Microsoft
> release two consoles in between theirs? I think they'd be doing
> precisely the opposite. It shows Microsoft are trying to do whatever
> they can to get ahead, whereas Sony can sit back and still do just as
> well.
Also this bit about "Sony can sit back and still do just as well" is where you waded, intentionally or not, into the discussion about whether Sony might be beaten as Nintendo were for being inflexible in their approach.
This is why as you kept saying 'that isn't my point' you had infact made the point although potentially in an unintentional way and this is why the focus shifted to the N64 which was around the time Nintendo had definitely lost the lead with no real hope of regaining it in the near future.
Hedfix wrote:
> This is what sticks out that you keep repeating: "I don't know
> about this or I don't know about that".
>
> Do somemore research then. I can at least name 3 games I want a 360
> for, one of which I've seen in-game footage for: Oblivion, Ghost
> Recon 3 and Perfect Dark Zero.
I've said I don't know about the N64. That's all. Console of the past, not the future.
> Do I want to wait to see if two of these appear on PS3 (PDZ is
> exclusive) or would I rather play them now on a 360? I'd rather play
> next-gen games now, I've seen Ghost Recon 3 gameplay footage and it
> looks great. If the PS3 was out first and with GR3 would I be waiting
> for 360? Not a chance.
But you're agreeing with me - I'm not saying that if both consoles have a game, you look into console specs etc, you get the one that has the games you like. So if you know the 360 has the games you like, you obviously get it.
Again this whole argument doesn't apply to your particular case, because since it started you've revealed that you'll be buying all three.
> Take a look at the information about 360 titles then comeback and if
> you can tell me you're not excited about one of them I'll be
> surprised.
I've had brief looks, but nothing jumped out at me.
> There is nothing stupid about wanting to get to grips with next-gen
> games as soon as possible.
No, but if it's next gen for the sake of next gen, then yes.
> This is what sticks out that you keep repeating: "I don't know
> about this or I don't know about that".
>
> Do somemore research then. I can at least name 3 games I want a 360
> for, one of which I've seen in-game footage for: Oblivion, Ghost
> Recon 3 and Perfect Dark Zero.
I've said I don't know about the N64. That's all. Console of the past, not the future.
> Do I want to wait to see if two of these appear on PS3 (PDZ is
> exclusive) or would I rather play them now on a 360? I'd rather play
> next-gen games now, I've seen Ghost Recon 3 gameplay footage and it
> looks great. If the PS3 was out first and with GR3 would I be waiting
> for 360? Not a chance.
But you're agreeing with me - I'm not saying that if both consoles have a game, you look into console specs etc, you get the one that has the games you like. So if you know the 360 has the games you like, you obviously get it.
Again this whole argument doesn't apply to your particular case, because since it started you've revealed that you'll be buying all three.
> Take a look at the information about 360 titles then comeback and if
> you can tell me you're not excited about one of them I'll be
> surprised.
I've had brief looks, but nothing jumped out at me.
> There is nothing stupid about wanting to get to grips with next-gen
> games as soon as possible.
No, but if it's next gen for the sake of next gen, then yes.
Hedfix wrote:
> You see it as a 360 vs PS3 debate. I don't.
No, that is what this turned into. All I've been saying is that it's wiser to consider your options than lunge headfirst into something. It's true of just about everything.
> I've been weighing up the pros and cons of each here and I intend to
> get both, even if I only get one for the exclusives.
>
> As far as starting games on 'Easy mode' it really depends on the game
> and it also depends on how much I want to get out of the game: I went
> through Max Payne on all the difficulty settings bar the timed one
> (not my sort of thing) and got a lot more playability out of the game
> than if I'd finished it on the hardest setting first, that is
> commonsense.
I agree here on getting the most out of your games. That's why on Pro Evo I start on three star, then move up to four, five etc. That way I get to play four or so master leagues, getting more difficult each time, rather than go straight in at the deep end and then have nowhere to go. But for someone who calls themself hardcore, actually putting the difficulty down a notche or two to begin with sounds incongruous. I find most games are a little (or a lot, in some cases) on the easy side in normal mode. God of War, for instance. I've been playing this recently, it's a great game, but there are a little too many health top ups and co. available. It feels less of a challenge.
> Regardless of whether you did or did not call people stupid you fell
> back on inflammatory language which you must've known would be
> replied to in a similar manner.
>
> I don't care which one wins. If you actually READ back to the earlier
> posts like I asked you to you would see that I said PS3 might come out
> on top because it is the more powerful machine for multiformat - the
> same way I bought the more powerful Xbox because the cube wasn't the
> machine to own for multiformat releases.
>
> Somewhere along the line you've mis-interpreted what I've said as an
> attack on the PS3 and gotten your fanboy pants all knotted up. I
> don't care who 'wins' the console war. I wantto play next-gen games
> and I want to play them now, not in 9 months etc.
To be perfectly honest, I didn't think you'd attacked the PS3 at all. I'm not even defending the PS3. Again, my point is simply that it's silly to go for one over another just because it's released a few months earlier. And, again, in your case this doesn't really apply because you'll be buying them all anyway.
While we're on the subject, I do think your attitude is stupid. "I want next gen and I want it now" - so you really don't care about the content of the games? If next gen is going to be rubbish, then I couldn't care less. You seemingly want next gen for the sake of next gen. I want next gen only for what it can offer me that the current one can't.
> Funny thing is you claim I've talked a lot of rubbish on the original
> topic but if you re-read your earlier posts you'll see you've been
> making excuses for Sony: "It'll be ready when it's ready"
> sort of comments.
No actual examples? I haven't made any excuses for Sony, I've simply said time and time again that if it's a choice between the two (or the three) then you should weigh up which console will have the games, and the type of games, that you prefer. Again, common sense.
And what am I supposed to be excusing Sony from, exactly? That their console isn't here at the same time as Microsoft's? They never said it would be, as far as I'm aware. Sony could announce that the PS3 won't ever actually come out, and I'd do a bit of research and get either the 360 or the Revolution, in time. Or maybe both. The only reason it would bother me is that it would be awkward - not being able to play old games on my main console, licenses being split between other consoles etc.
> That's fanboy stuff, you're average gamer (hardcore
> or otherwise) just wants to get his hands on next-gen games and play
> them to death.
More fool your average gamer. I'd rather have quality over a label. If the main next generation games are awful, I won't buy them. I have patience.
> Like I said if the PS3 were to come out first I'd get that, I want to
> play games not weigh up every little pro and con or side with the
> console that's did best last time around. It's all about the games.
Yes...that's what I'm saying. If you're choosing one, choose the one with the best games. Which is a subjective matter, obviously. Do I have to say it many more times?
> You see it as a 360 vs PS3 debate. I don't.
No, that is what this turned into. All I've been saying is that it's wiser to consider your options than lunge headfirst into something. It's true of just about everything.
> I've been weighing up the pros and cons of each here and I intend to
> get both, even if I only get one for the exclusives.
>
> As far as starting games on 'Easy mode' it really depends on the game
> and it also depends on how much I want to get out of the game: I went
> through Max Payne on all the difficulty settings bar the timed one
> (not my sort of thing) and got a lot more playability out of the game
> than if I'd finished it on the hardest setting first, that is
> commonsense.
I agree here on getting the most out of your games. That's why on Pro Evo I start on three star, then move up to four, five etc. That way I get to play four or so master leagues, getting more difficult each time, rather than go straight in at the deep end and then have nowhere to go. But for someone who calls themself hardcore, actually putting the difficulty down a notche or two to begin with sounds incongruous. I find most games are a little (or a lot, in some cases) on the easy side in normal mode. God of War, for instance. I've been playing this recently, it's a great game, but there are a little too many health top ups and co. available. It feels less of a challenge.
> Regardless of whether you did or did not call people stupid you fell
> back on inflammatory language which you must've known would be
> replied to in a similar manner.
>
> I don't care which one wins. If you actually READ back to the earlier
> posts like I asked you to you would see that I said PS3 might come out
> on top because it is the more powerful machine for multiformat - the
> same way I bought the more powerful Xbox because the cube wasn't the
> machine to own for multiformat releases.
>
> Somewhere along the line you've mis-interpreted what I've said as an
> attack on the PS3 and gotten your fanboy pants all knotted up. I
> don't care who 'wins' the console war. I wantto play next-gen games
> and I want to play them now, not in 9 months etc.
To be perfectly honest, I didn't think you'd attacked the PS3 at all. I'm not even defending the PS3. Again, my point is simply that it's silly to go for one over another just because it's released a few months earlier. And, again, in your case this doesn't really apply because you'll be buying them all anyway.
While we're on the subject, I do think your attitude is stupid. "I want next gen and I want it now" - so you really don't care about the content of the games? If next gen is going to be rubbish, then I couldn't care less. You seemingly want next gen for the sake of next gen. I want next gen only for what it can offer me that the current one can't.
> Funny thing is you claim I've talked a lot of rubbish on the original
> topic but if you re-read your earlier posts you'll see you've been
> making excuses for Sony: "It'll be ready when it's ready"
> sort of comments.
No actual examples? I haven't made any excuses for Sony, I've simply said time and time again that if it's a choice between the two (or the three) then you should weigh up which console will have the games, and the type of games, that you prefer. Again, common sense.
And what am I supposed to be excusing Sony from, exactly? That their console isn't here at the same time as Microsoft's? They never said it would be, as far as I'm aware. Sony could announce that the PS3 won't ever actually come out, and I'd do a bit of research and get either the 360 or the Revolution, in time. Or maybe both. The only reason it would bother me is that it would be awkward - not being able to play old games on my main console, licenses being split between other consoles etc.
> That's fanboy stuff, you're average gamer (hardcore
> or otherwise) just wants to get his hands on next-gen games and play
> them to death.
More fool your average gamer. I'd rather have quality over a label. If the main next generation games are awful, I won't buy them. I have patience.
> Like I said if the PS3 were to come out first I'd get that, I want to
> play games not weigh up every little pro and con or side with the
> console that's did best last time around. It's all about the games.
Yes...that's what I'm saying. If you're choosing one, choose the one with the best games. Which is a subjective matter, obviously. Do I have to say it many more times?
Page: