The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Can someone please explain why i have just wasted over £400 on a Sony Playstion 2 with Memory Card and 2 games?
The graphics are better on my PC (I have a Athlon 1Gh 32MB GE Force 2 256Mb SDram & DVD) but OK this cost me Over a Grand and I Carn't play Psone games errr No I can play Psone games via Bleam! and before anyone says about PS2 gmes that is another subject over £70 for 2 games of which one Tekan 2 is a good but average game and X-Squad which now is an Expensive Mousemat, as it can hardly be described as a playable game!
Haveing digresed from my origanl point fair is fair either the PS2 carn't or sony is not tring hard enough to match there £300 book End er I mean Console to a £1000 PC But what about the N64 it only costs £80 and comes in a cute Picachu modal and with so few but so many games,in the sense that most N64 titles are far and few between there are Exelent titles Mario 64, Perfect Dark, Zelda, Pokemon Stadium and pushing my luck Pokemon Snap and Mario Tennis.
But thing to the future, there appears to be no future for N64 with the less hyped probaly cheeper and better Gamecube is around the corner.
Now having rambbled on about PCs and N64s I come to what the title says "Don't Waste Your Money - Buy A Dreamcast" and I mean it, Honastly.
Firstly the PS2 £300 for the console ok it plays DVDs but add on £28 for a Memory Card and £15 for a Controller and £35-£45 a game its relly expnsive when the game are not up to scatch, as well as owning tekan and my mouse mat (X- Squad) I have played, RR5, Midnight Run, Fifa 2001 and with the exeption of Fifa all had Psone quality graphics and Gamplay not seen sine an Atari 7800!.
Now take the Dreamcast you can buy at this very shop for £186 or ther abouts with 6 yes count them 6 games including the Exelent Sonic Adventure (Match This Game Sony) and the also Exelent Soul Calibar combind this with the mediocor ready to rumble and the Poor tomb raider (poor on all formats) and add the iceing with a online multiplayer Game and what can i say the Ps2 doen't even come with a Modem!
This brings me to the other features of the dreamcast Internet Access Trough Your TV No cable no dish not even an ariel requied just the Dc and a phone line. With all the features mentioned and the 6 games just bundled with this dreamcast having more playabilty than the currunt UK Ps2 Catolog I could rest my case but no people will say I am plugging this shop I'm not try any store and you'll get a DC with Games for bewteen £140 and £200, Also athough i do not own a dreamcast I soon will and all my mates do so that is how i know about the quality of games. Finaly for you who say well the DC does not feauture A DVD player two tree words High Street £130 (For which you get superia qualaty a seperate box and a Remote Controll).
For anyone who may still need convincing look below
Sony PS2 £300 Includes DVD Player and High Street Cred
Sega Dreamcast Includes Internet Access and GAMES £186 and add a DVD for £130 if thats what you want?
The graphics are better on my PC (I have a Athlon 1Gh 32MB GE Force 2 256Mb SDram & DVD) but OK this cost me Over a Grand and I Carn't play Psone games errr No I can play Psone games via Bleam! and before anyone says about PS2 gmes that is another subject over £70 for 2 games of which one Tekan 2 is a good but average game and X-Squad which now is an Expensive Mousemat, as it can hardly be described as a playable game!
Haveing digresed from my origanl point fair is fair either the PS2 carn't or sony is not tring hard enough to match there £300 book End er I mean Console to a £1000 PC But what about the N64 it only costs £80 and comes in a cute Picachu modal and with so few but so many games,in the sense that most N64 titles are far and few between there are Exelent titles Mario 64, Perfect Dark, Zelda, Pokemon Stadium and pushing my luck Pokemon Snap and Mario Tennis.
But thing to the future, there appears to be no future for N64 with the less hyped probaly cheeper and better Gamecube is around the corner.
Now having rambbled on about PCs and N64s I come to what the title says "Don't Waste Your Money - Buy A Dreamcast" and I mean it, Honastly.
Firstly the PS2 £300 for the console ok it plays DVDs but add on £28 for a Memory Card and £15 for a Controller and £35-£45 a game its relly expnsive when the game are not up to scatch, as well as owning tekan and my mouse mat (X- Squad) I have played, RR5, Midnight Run, Fifa 2001 and with the exeption of Fifa all had Psone quality graphics and Gamplay not seen sine an Atari 7800!.
Now take the Dreamcast you can buy at this very shop for £186 or ther abouts with 6 yes count them 6 games including the Exelent Sonic Adventure (Match This Game Sony) and the also Exelent Soul Calibar combind this with the mediocor ready to rumble and the Poor tomb raider (poor on all formats) and add the iceing with a online multiplayer Game and what can i say the Ps2 doen't even come with a Modem!
This brings me to the other features of the dreamcast Internet Access Trough Your TV No cable no dish not even an ariel requied just the Dc and a phone line. With all the features mentioned and the 6 games just bundled with this dreamcast having more playabilty than the currunt UK Ps2 Catolog I could rest my case but no people will say I am plugging this shop I'm not try any store and you'll get a DC with Games for bewteen £140 and £200, Also athough i do not own a dreamcast I soon will and all my mates do so that is how i know about the quality of games. Finaly for you who say well the DC does not feauture A DVD player two tree words High Street £130 (For which you get superia qualaty a seperate box and a Remote Controll).
For anyone who may still need convincing look below
Sony PS2 £300 Includes DVD Player and High Street Cred
Sega Dreamcast Includes Internet Access and GAMES £186 and add a DVD for £130 if thats what you want?
Page:
Yeah, sorry Ortega, I`ll try and make peace. I`m only messing around on this thread because this subject is repeated over and over.
Anyway, what A-levels are you doing? I did mine last year, so they`re fresh in my memory. If you do Biology or Chemistry then I can`t help because I messed those up. However if you`re a mathematician, then I might be able to tell you what to expect (though you`re bound to know that anyway). I`m still doing maths now, at uni. I enjoy maths, but certainly not as much as computer-gaming and other social stuff etc...
Anyway, what A-levels are you doing? I did mine last year, so they`re fresh in my memory. If you do Biology or Chemistry then I can`t help because I messed those up. However if you`re a mathematician, then I might be able to tell you what to expect (though you`re bound to know that anyway). I`m still doing maths now, at uni. I enjoy maths, but certainly not as much as computer-gaming and other social stuff etc...
ssxpro wrote:
> Which, by the way, he (or just in case cuz I can`t seem sexist, she)
> most certainly isn`t as stupid, just in case your lack of ability to
> argue with him drove you to write that he was.
What the hell is your flippin problem with me hey? i wasnt arguing with monstor boy. i aint gonna even to argue with this guy as he is far more Intellectual than i am. i was just asking a question. and yes your right i didnt read all of his/her post. the reason for this is because it was way too long. i was revising for my a level mocks and fought i'd have a quick break. just dont have a go at me right.
> Which, by the way, he (or just in case cuz I can`t seem sexist, she)
> most certainly isn`t as stupid, just in case your lack of ability to
> argue with him drove you to write that he was.
What the hell is your flippin problem with me hey? i wasnt arguing with monstor boy. i aint gonna even to argue with this guy as he is far more Intellectual than i am. i was just asking a question. and yes your right i didnt read all of his/her post. the reason for this is because it was way too long. i was revising for my a level mocks and fought i'd have a quick break. just dont have a go at me right.
Yep, I agree - I also play games on my PC, and I know what you mean about configuration. I bought Project IGI before Xmas but had to take it back because it wouldn't work on my machine, even with all the latest drivers etc. It's very frustrating. I just hope it gets a PS2 conversion in the not too distant future.
> Going back to UT again,
> I don't believe for a minute that the PS2 is not capable of handling
> it with a decent framerate, but the previews are looking a bit
> sluggish in places. Could it be possible that the original PC code
> wasn't that efficient, and it's showing in it's port to the
> PS2?
Could well be. One developer (I think it was Free Radical, developer of TimeSplitters) has said that, due to the way PS2's innards work, a straight PC port will never give you the best result. They designed TimeSplitters from the ground up specifically for PS2 - hence the outstanding performance, even in 4-player mode.
It has also been suggested that UT may have been deliberately slowed down to enable more control using the Dual Shock pad. I suppose this is possible, as a mouse is by far the most accurate control device for such games. However, I would tend not to believe this, as a USB mouse can be used with the PS2 version. More likely, IMHO, is that the creators have either attempted a 'simple' port, or haven't quite got their code optimised.
> No doubt that will change when we get internet
> connection, and a HD.
That is one of my main concerns with this whole 'convergence' issue. Hopefully Sony's software QA people will ensure this doesn't happen.
> Going back to UT again,
> I don't believe for a minute that the PS2 is not capable of handling
> it with a decent framerate, but the previews are looking a bit
> sluggish in places. Could it be possible that the original PC code
> wasn't that efficient, and it's showing in it's port to the
> PS2?
Could well be. One developer (I think it was Free Radical, developer of TimeSplitters) has said that, due to the way PS2's innards work, a straight PC port will never give you the best result. They designed TimeSplitters from the ground up specifically for PS2 - hence the outstanding performance, even in 4-player mode.
It has also been suggested that UT may have been deliberately slowed down to enable more control using the Dual Shock pad. I suppose this is possible, as a mouse is by far the most accurate control device for such games. However, I would tend not to believe this, as a USB mouse can be used with the PS2 version. More likely, IMHO, is that the creators have either attempted a 'simple' port, or haven't quite got their code optimised.
> No doubt that will change when we get internet
> connection, and a HD.
That is one of my main concerns with this whole 'convergence' issue. Hopefully Sony's software QA people will ensure this doesn't happen.
The PC architecture is outdated, but fortunately that doesn't stop developers producing great games for it. But as a PC gamer myself, configuration is an absolute nightmare. I've got a reasonable spec PC, but I would be foolish to expect games to work 'properly' out of the box, something we take for granted on the PS2. One of the biggest problems being graphics drivers. As an example, UT plays like an absolute dog under Direct 3D on my machine, and textures are completely the wrong colour. Fortunately it plays like a dream on other drivers.
Plus with the PC being an ever changing platform, there's always the feeling the developer's never really get anywhere near 100% out of the machine. It's far easier for them to increase the suggested minimum and recommended specs. Going back to UT again, I don't believe for a minute that the PS2 is not capable of handling it with a decent framerate, but the previews are looking a bit sluggish in places. Could it be possible that the original PC code wasn't that efficient, and it's showing in it's port to the PS2?
Also there's the mentality on the PC, that patches are easy to release and obtain, therefore the 'odd bug' won't matter, as long as release schedules are met. At the moment we're blessed that games are released 'as is' on the PS2. If it's bugged, word will get round, and less people will buy it. There's no quick fix. No doubt that will change when we get internet connection, and a HD.
So you may wonder, why I bother with PC games? Well for me there is a lot more imagination, innovation and depth shown in PC games. A very sweeping statement, and there are obviously exceptions. But balancing that with the more instant gratification of many console titles, meets my gaming needs.
Plus with the PC being an ever changing platform, there's always the feeling the developer's never really get anywhere near 100% out of the machine. It's far easier for them to increase the suggested minimum and recommended specs. Going back to UT again, I don't believe for a minute that the PS2 is not capable of handling it with a decent framerate, but the previews are looking a bit sluggish in places. Could it be possible that the original PC code wasn't that efficient, and it's showing in it's port to the PS2?
Also there's the mentality on the PC, that patches are easy to release and obtain, therefore the 'odd bug' won't matter, as long as release schedules are met. At the moment we're blessed that games are released 'as is' on the PS2. If it's bugged, word will get round, and less people will buy it. There's no quick fix. No doubt that will change when we get internet connection, and a HD.
So you may wonder, why I bother with PC games? Well for me there is a lot more imagination, innovation and depth shown in PC games. A very sweeping statement, and there are obviously exceptions. But balancing that with the more instant gratification of many console titles, meets my gaming needs.
> so what u saying is that my amiga 600 has the same
> archtecture as my PC?
As ssxpro pointed out, that's not what I actually said at all.
But since you mention it, your A600 has a more advanced basic system architecture than your PC. It has true pre-emptive multi-tasking in a 512K OS, custom chips designed to work with each other (unlike the numerous upgrades available for a PC), and had AutoConfig (the Amiga equivalent of Plug & Play) before Plug and Play was even a twinkle in Mr Gates' eye.
My whole point is that the PC's 'advantage' of its upgradeability is also its downfall. Developers can never get the very best out of a PC (as far as games are concerned) because they're never quite sure what's in it. They have to cater for as many combinations of hardware as they can in order to sell the game to as many people as possible.
Hence much hardware access on a PC is done through interpretation of drivers and libraries (DirectX, Direct3D, DirectSound, EAX etc.), which slows the overall process. So as games advance, ever more powerful processors are needed in order to drive them at a reasonable speed.
With the Amiga - and consoles - developers know exactly what they have to work with, and can squeeze every last drop of power out of the system, giving better performance for less overall power.
> archtecture as my PC?
As ssxpro pointed out, that's not what I actually said at all.
But since you mention it, your A600 has a more advanced basic system architecture than your PC. It has true pre-emptive multi-tasking in a 512K OS, custom chips designed to work with each other (unlike the numerous upgrades available for a PC), and had AutoConfig (the Amiga equivalent of Plug & Play) before Plug and Play was even a twinkle in Mr Gates' eye.
My whole point is that the PC's 'advantage' of its upgradeability is also its downfall. Developers can never get the very best out of a PC (as far as games are concerned) because they're never quite sure what's in it. They have to cater for as many combinations of hardware as they can in order to sell the game to as many people as possible.
Hence much hardware access on a PC is done through interpretation of drivers and libraries (DirectX, Direct3D, DirectSound, EAX etc.), which slows the overall process. So as games advance, ever more powerful processors are needed in order to drive them at a reasonable speed.
With the Amiga - and consoles - developers know exactly what they have to work with, and can squeeze every last drop of power out of the system, giving better performance for less overall power.
Which, by the way, he (or just in case cuz I can`t seem sexist, she) most certainly isn`t as stupid, just in case your lack of ability to argue with him drove you to write that he was.
Ortega, I recommend that you read beyond the first few sentences of Wookiee Monster`s reply. I know its hard for you, but the whole message is useful. Or is it that you couldn`t argue with the rest?
As for the bit you did argue, that isn`t what he said. He just said that he could produce similar documents on his amiga using the typing capabilities and word proceesing tools available, he did not mention the overall architecture, and I know for sure that he wasn`t suggesting the Amiga was as architecturally advanced, because that would make him almost as stupid as you.
As for the bit you did argue, that isn`t what he said. He just said that he could produce similar documents on his amiga using the typing capabilities and word proceesing tools available, he did not mention the overall architecture, and I know for sure that he wasn`t suggesting the Amiga was as architecturally advanced, because that would make him almost as stupid as you.
so what u saying is that my amiga 600 has the same archtecture as my PC?
> Master of none? What do you consider to be better suited for word
> processing then? Typewriter?
Yes, there are areas in which the PC excels - but word processing isn't exactly technology driven. I used to produce documents on my Amiga which looked every bit as good as the ones I produce on my PC, and the WP software and OS all fitted on an 80Mb HD with plenty of space left for other software.
> Or how about internet capabities, still
> well in advance of any console.
But the PC is designed to do many things, and has been accessing the net long enough to make significant advances. I remember when I first used the net on a PC - it wasn't even as good as consoles are now. Currently, only the Dreamcast has net capability, and that is provided primarily for playing games - it doesn't currently need to be as advanced as the PC. At least let the other manufacturers get their net functionality up and running before you say it's no good!
> However, "Jack of all trades,
> master of none" is becoming true for modern consoles now as
> well.
I agree - the so-called 'convergance' issues are... interesting, to say the least. I look forward to a single do-anything machine. However, I think there will always be a thriving market for dedicated games-only machines such as the GameCube. Why? Because no matter how good the all-in-one machine may be, there will always be people who *only* want something to play games on.
> try pc games at 640x480 and you may notice them speed up
True, but how bad do they look at that resolution?! :-)
> Personally, I've just got a new pc and the graphics on
> here can easily match up to the PS2, and this is with the console
> still in its first year.
Yes, but how much did that PC cost you? I'll be surprised if it was under £800. The PC's aren't cheap; the latest graphics cards alone are more expensive than the PS2, and if you want to take full advantage of those cards (higher resolutions etc.) you need at least a 19" monitor, costing another couple of hundred at least.
And as you say, the PS2 is still in its first year. Look how much PS1 graphics have improved in its lifetime. I have yet to see any PC flight sim that looks as photo-realistic as Ace Combat 4, and there's certainly no racer that looks as good as GT3. Who knows what we'll be seeing in another couple of years?
> processing then? Typewriter?
Yes, there are areas in which the PC excels - but word processing isn't exactly technology driven. I used to produce documents on my Amiga which looked every bit as good as the ones I produce on my PC, and the WP software and OS all fitted on an 80Mb HD with plenty of space left for other software.
> Or how about internet capabities, still
> well in advance of any console.
But the PC is designed to do many things, and has been accessing the net long enough to make significant advances. I remember when I first used the net on a PC - it wasn't even as good as consoles are now. Currently, only the Dreamcast has net capability, and that is provided primarily for playing games - it doesn't currently need to be as advanced as the PC. At least let the other manufacturers get their net functionality up and running before you say it's no good!
> However, "Jack of all trades,
> master of none" is becoming true for modern consoles now as
> well.
I agree - the so-called 'convergance' issues are... interesting, to say the least. I look forward to a single do-anything machine. However, I think there will always be a thriving market for dedicated games-only machines such as the GameCube. Why? Because no matter how good the all-in-one machine may be, there will always be people who *only* want something to play games on.
> try pc games at 640x480 and you may notice them speed up
True, but how bad do they look at that resolution?! :-)
> Personally, I've just got a new pc and the graphics on
> here can easily match up to the PS2, and this is with the console
> still in its first year.
Yes, but how much did that PC cost you? I'll be surprised if it was under £800. The PC's aren't cheap; the latest graphics cards alone are more expensive than the PS2, and if you want to take full advantage of those cards (higher resolutions etc.) you need at least a 19" monitor, costing another couple of hundred at least.
And as you say, the PS2 is still in its first year. Look how much PS1 graphics have improved in its lifetime. I have yet to see any PC flight sim that looks as photo-realistic as Ace Combat 4, and there's certainly no racer that looks as good as GT3. Who knows what we'll be seeing in another couple of years?
Master of none? What do you consider to be better suited for word processing then? Typewriter? Or how about internet capabities, still well in advance of any console.
However, "Jack of all trades, master of none" is becoming true for modern consoles now as well. It's no longer enough to produce a humble games platform, it has to have extra features to entice the public (GC being an exception), PS2's dvd player and (eventually) broadband access, xbox being dubbed as a mini pc, the Indrema with upgradeable architecture...These aren't just simple consoles, they need to expand to keep up with public demand.
The graphics output from a next-gen console is admittedly better than many pcs, at least smoother, but remember that these are running at low res on a tv screen...try pc games at 640x480 and you may notice them speed up somewhat. Personally, I've just got a new pc and the graphics on here can easily match up to the PS2, and this is with the console still in its first year. Not that I dont like consoles, I think they're great entertainemt and buy them myself, but they are very limited by the hardware, and what was impressive at the machine's launch will start looking dated, especially compared to new pcs.
However, "Jack of all trades, master of none" is becoming true for modern consoles now as well. It's no longer enough to produce a humble games platform, it has to have extra features to entice the public (GC being an exception), PS2's dvd player and (eventually) broadband access, xbox being dubbed as a mini pc, the Indrema with upgradeable architecture...These aren't just simple consoles, they need to expand to keep up with public demand.
The graphics output from a next-gen console is admittedly better than many pcs, at least smoother, but remember that these are running at low res on a tv screen...try pc games at 640x480 and you may notice them speed up somewhat. Personally, I've just got a new pc and the graphics on here can easily match up to the PS2, and this is with the console still in its first year. Not that I dont like consoles, I think they're great entertainemt and buy them myself, but they are very limited by the hardware, and what was impressive at the machine's launch will start looking dated, especially compared to new pcs.
Page: