The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
There's no point in denying it: so far the PS2 is a big pile of cack. Regardless of how much better it will or won't be when a handful of much awaited games arrive, at the moment almost everyone is disappointed with it.
Some blame the lack of first class (or even good) software for it. Some blame the inundation of sequels, past, present and (seemingly) future. Both of these things often go hand in hand with each other but why have they happened in the first place?
Is the PS2 not enough of a leap forward to allow anything more than graphically tarted up sequels and spin-offs? The answer is no - and I don't think it has anything to do with the machine itself.
The original PlayStation wasn't the most powerful console of the currently expiring generation. Nor did it have the best games. It did have by far the best marketing and, as much as it shouldn't, that counts for a great deal. Yeah, yeah, blah, blah everyone has posted a comment like that but bear with me and I do get more original.
I think the PS2 is in trouble because of two things. Firstly, there is no in-house software to set a standard by. When the N64 was in development and everyone was still beavering away on their games for it behind closed doors, Nintendo unveiled Super Mario 64. The game blew people (particularly other developers) away so much that many games already well into production at that time underwent serious changes to try and compete with the quality of and ideas in this truly next generation title.
When it comes to Sony, they have always generally made rubbish games, so there is no home-grown standard to set to other people making games for their console.
The other point is something that the PS2 has which I don't recall any other console ever having: a joypad lifted straigh from it's predecessor. Forget the analogue buttons which nobody seems to care about anymore and it's just a black PSOne pad. In each evolution of it's pads, Nintendo (and to a less extent, Sega) has come up with often quite dramatically different designs in an attempt to offer devolopers new ways for people to interact with their games in the hope that the games themselves can also evolve to a new level. Look at the GameCube pad and how few conventions it adheres to.
In keeping with the same joypad design Sony isn't allowing the PS2 games to become anything more than tarted up versions of something which could just as easily be done on the PsOne - which is probably partly why there are still so many games in development for the ageing machine.
Lack of standard-setting, home-grown software and a re-used joypad - that's where I think they've gone wrong. Anyone agree?
Some blame the lack of first class (or even good) software for it. Some blame the inundation of sequels, past, present and (seemingly) future. Both of these things often go hand in hand with each other but why have they happened in the first place?
Is the PS2 not enough of a leap forward to allow anything more than graphically tarted up sequels and spin-offs? The answer is no - and I don't think it has anything to do with the machine itself.
The original PlayStation wasn't the most powerful console of the currently expiring generation. Nor did it have the best games. It did have by far the best marketing and, as much as it shouldn't, that counts for a great deal. Yeah, yeah, blah, blah everyone has posted a comment like that but bear with me and I do get more original.
I think the PS2 is in trouble because of two things. Firstly, there is no in-house software to set a standard by. When the N64 was in development and everyone was still beavering away on their games for it behind closed doors, Nintendo unveiled Super Mario 64. The game blew people (particularly other developers) away so much that many games already well into production at that time underwent serious changes to try and compete with the quality of and ideas in this truly next generation title.
When it comes to Sony, they have always generally made rubbish games, so there is no home-grown standard to set to other people making games for their console.
The other point is something that the PS2 has which I don't recall any other console ever having: a joypad lifted straigh from it's predecessor. Forget the analogue buttons which nobody seems to care about anymore and it's just a black PSOne pad. In each evolution of it's pads, Nintendo (and to a less extent, Sega) has come up with often quite dramatically different designs in an attempt to offer devolopers new ways for people to interact with their games in the hope that the games themselves can also evolve to a new level. Look at the GameCube pad and how few conventions it adheres to.
In keeping with the same joypad design Sony isn't allowing the PS2 games to become anything more than tarted up versions of something which could just as easily be done on the PsOne - which is probably partly why there are still so many games in development for the ageing machine.
Lack of standard-setting, home-grown software and a re-used joypad - that's where I think they've gone wrong. Anyone agree?
Page:
Time_Warp wrote:
you handled that one pretty well! all in
> a days work huh!
(:)
Thanks muchly, Time_Warp.
Don't take this the wrong way but perhaps 'reply' would have been better, rather than 'reply quoting the original message'. Otherwise this topic is going to get very long very quickly!
you handled that one pretty well! all in
> a days work huh!
(:)
Thanks muchly, Time_Warp.
Don't take this the wrong way but perhaps 'reply' would have been better, rather than 'reply quoting the original message'. Otherwise this topic is going to get very long very quickly!
SmokedKipper wrote:
> ssxpro wrote:
> Hello? Have you met a PS2 owner?
Have you
> met a non-PS2 owner? There's a lot more of them.
> Sequels?
> Yes there will be many, but not all of them are.
Too many far too
> similar ones.
> There are
> also many conversions on the
> way from Dreamcast.
> Also, its hardly a
> true sequel when
> its on a new machine. Otherwise Mario would be the
> least
> popular thing around.
It's a sequel if it is a follow up to an
> existing game, regardless of what machine it appears on. Mario games
> change a lot from one to another - how many PS games do?
> The
> Final Fantasies and Wipeout Fusion are also on the
>
> way.
More sequels. Admittedly then might be quite good
> ones.
Is the PS2 not enough of a leap forward to allow
>
> anything
> more than graphically tarted up sequels and
>
> spin-offs? The answer is
> no - and I don't think it has
>
> anything to do with the machine
> itself.
Try again.
> The
> answer is yes. Otherwise I don`t think it would be doing
> as well as
> it is.
The answer is definitely no - it's doing
> well because of the name not the product.
> The standard isn`t
> set by Sony, it is set by competitor
> consoles.
If Nintendo
> didn't make Mario 64 then the N64 games would not have been as good
> as (or, in some cases, worse than) they were. If Sony made some
> truly great early PS games then other developers would in turn have
> made even better games and the console would have been even more
> successful. In the long run, you are right, but I'm on about the
> early days (I'll almost credit you with that one, due to a lack of
> clarity on my part).
> Yes obviously the games will stay the
> same because you
> can only accelerate with the X button. What a
> load of
> rubbish!
If you can't evolve the games then why
> evolve the console? In creating a new way of controlling a game you
> create a new way of playing a game.
Covered that. Hardly
> original. All rubbish. Nexrt
> argument please.
PS2 owner
> reply as expected. Hardly original. All rubbish. Next PS2 owner
> please.
you handled that one pretty well! all in a days work huh!
(:)
> ssxpro wrote:
> Hello? Have you met a PS2 owner?
Have you
> met a non-PS2 owner? There's a lot more of them.
> Sequels?
> Yes there will be many, but not all of them are.
Too many far too
> similar ones.
> There are
> also many conversions on the
> way from Dreamcast.
> Also, its hardly a
> true sequel when
> its on a new machine. Otherwise Mario would be the
> least
> popular thing around.
It's a sequel if it is a follow up to an
> existing game, regardless of what machine it appears on. Mario games
> change a lot from one to another - how many PS games do?
> The
> Final Fantasies and Wipeout Fusion are also on the
>
> way.
More sequels. Admittedly then might be quite good
> ones.
Is the PS2 not enough of a leap forward to allow
>
> anything
> more than graphically tarted up sequels and
>
> spin-offs? The answer is
> no - and I don't think it has
>
> anything to do with the machine
> itself.
Try again.
> The
> answer is yes. Otherwise I don`t think it would be doing
> as well as
> it is.
The answer is definitely no - it's doing
> well because of the name not the product.
> The standard isn`t
> set by Sony, it is set by competitor
> consoles.
If Nintendo
> didn't make Mario 64 then the N64 games would not have been as good
> as (or, in some cases, worse than) they were. If Sony made some
> truly great early PS games then other developers would in turn have
> made even better games and the console would have been even more
> successful. In the long run, you are right, but I'm on about the
> early days (I'll almost credit you with that one, due to a lack of
> clarity on my part).
> Yes obviously the games will stay the
> same because you
> can only accelerate with the X button. What a
> load of
> rubbish!
If you can't evolve the games then why
> evolve the console? In creating a new way of controlling a game you
> create a new way of playing a game.
Covered that. Hardly
> original. All rubbish. Nexrt
> argument please.
PS2 owner
> reply as expected. Hardly original. All rubbish. Next PS2 owner
> please.
you handled that one pretty well! all in a days work huh!
(:)
ssxpro wrote:
> Hello? Have you met a PS2 owner?
Have you met a non-PS2 owner? There's a lot more of them.
> Sequels? Yes there will be many, but not all of them are.
Too many far too similar ones.
> There are
> also many conversions on the way from Dreamcast.
> Also, its hardly a
> true sequel when its on a new machine. Otherwise Mario would be the
> least popular thing around.
It's a sequel if it is a follow up to an existing game, regardless of what machine it appears on. Mario games change a lot from one to another - how many PS games do?
> The Final Fantasies and Wipeout Fusion are also on the
> way.
More sequels. Admittedly then might be quite good ones.
Is the PS2 not enough of a leap forward to allow
> anything
> more than graphically tarted up sequels and
> spin-offs? The answer is
> no - and I don't think it has
> anything to do with the machine
> itself.
Try again. The
> answer is yes. Otherwise I don`t think it would be doing as well as
> it is.
The answer is definitely no - it's doing well because of the name not the product.
> The standard isn`t set by Sony, it is set by competitor
> consoles.
If Nintendo didn't make Mario 64 then the N64 games would not have been as good as (or, in some cases, worse than) they were. If Sony made some truly great early PS games then other developers would in turn have made even better games and the console would have been even more successful. In the long run, you are right, but I'm on about the early days (I'll almost credit you with that one, due to a lack of clarity on my part).
> Yes obviously the games will stay the same because you
> can only accelerate with the X button. What a load of
> rubbish!
If you can't evolve the games then why evolve the console? In creating a new way of controlling a game you create a new way of playing a game.
Covered that. Hardly original. All rubbish. Nexrt
> argument please.
PS2 owner reply as expected. Hardly original. All rubbish. Next PS2 owner please.
> Hello? Have you met a PS2 owner?
Have you met a non-PS2 owner? There's a lot more of them.
> Sequels? Yes there will be many, but not all of them are.
Too many far too similar ones.
> There are
> also many conversions on the way from Dreamcast.
> Also, its hardly a
> true sequel when its on a new machine. Otherwise Mario would be the
> least popular thing around.
It's a sequel if it is a follow up to an existing game, regardless of what machine it appears on. Mario games change a lot from one to another - how many PS games do?
> The Final Fantasies and Wipeout Fusion are also on the
> way.
More sequels. Admittedly then might be quite good ones.
Is the PS2 not enough of a leap forward to allow
> anything
> more than graphically tarted up sequels and
> spin-offs? The answer is
> no - and I don't think it has
> anything to do with the machine
> itself.
Try again. The
> answer is yes. Otherwise I don`t think it would be doing as well as
> it is.
The answer is definitely no - it's doing well because of the name not the product.
> The standard isn`t set by Sony, it is set by competitor
> consoles.
If Nintendo didn't make Mario 64 then the N64 games would not have been as good as (or, in some cases, worse than) they were. If Sony made some truly great early PS games then other developers would in turn have made even better games and the console would have been even more successful. In the long run, you are right, but I'm on about the early days (I'll almost credit you with that one, due to a lack of clarity on my part).
> Yes obviously the games will stay the same because you
> can only accelerate with the X button. What a load of
> rubbish!
If you can't evolve the games then why evolve the console? In creating a new way of controlling a game you create a new way of playing a game.
Covered that. Hardly original. All rubbish. Nexrt
> argument please.
PS2 owner reply as expected. Hardly original. All rubbish. Next PS2 owner please.
SmokedKipper wrote:
> There's no point in denying it: so far the PS2 is a big pile of
> cack. Regardless of how much better it will or won't be when a
> handful of much awaited games arrive, at the moment almost everyone
> is disappointed with it.
Hello? Have you met a PS2 owner? Most of us love it. The only ones who are disappointed are those who`s mahines have failed them. Look at SSX, Starfighter, ZOE, TimeSplitters etc...
Some blame the lack of first class (or
> even good) software for it. Some blame the inundation of sequels,
> past, present and (seemingly) future. Both of these things often go
> hand in hand with each other but why have they happened in the first
> place?
Sequels? Yes there will be many, but not all of them are.
Onimusha
Dark Cloud
ZOE
Starfighter
Winning Eleven 5
World Rally Championship
Dropship
Red Faction
Virtual Ocean
Shadow of Memories
The Getaway
The Bouncer
There are also many conversions on the way from Dreamcast.
Also, its hardly a true sequel when its on a new machine. Otherwise Mario would be the least popular thing around. MGS2 and GT3 are the first in the next gen group. The Final Fantasies and Wipeout Fusion are also on the way.
Is the PS2 not enough of a leap forward to allow anything
> more than graphically tarted up sequels and spin-offs? The answer is
> no - and I don't think it has anything to do with the machine
> itself.
Try again. The answer is yes. Otherwise I don`t think it would be doing as well as it is.
The original PlayStation wasn't the most powerful console
> of the currently expiring generation. Nor did it have the best
> games. It did have by far the best marketing and, as much as it
> shouldn't, that counts for a great deal. Yeah, yeah, blah, blah
> everyone has posted a comment like that but bear with me and I do
> get more original.
I know. So does everyone else.
I think the PS2 is in trouble because of two
> things. Firstly, there is no in-house software to set a standard by.
> When the N64 was in development and everyone was still beavering
> away on their games for it behind closed doors, Nintendo unveiled
> Super Mario 64. The game blew people (particularly other developers)
> away so much that many games already well into production at that
> time underwent serious changes to try and compete with the quality
> of and ideas in this truly next generation title.
Sony are keeping some games to themselves as well, but I don`t think that `s important. It gives developers more freedom. Just because it isn`t actually from Sony themselves hasn`t been a problem before. - Gran Turismo. Metal Gear Solid Final Fantasy etc...
When it comes
> to Sony, they have always generally made rubbish games, so there is
> no home-grown standard to set to other people making games for their
> console.
The standard isn`t set by Sony, it is set by competitor consoles.
The other point is something that the PS2 has which I
> don't recall any other console ever having: a joypad lifted straigh
> from it's predecessor. Forget the analogue buttons which nobody
> seems to care about anymore and it's just a black PSOne pad. In each
> evolution of it's pads, Nintendo (and to a less extent, Sega) has
> come up with often quite dramatically different designs in an
> attempt to offer devolopers new ways for people to interact with
> their games in the hope that the games themselves can also evolve to
> a new level. Look at the GameCube pad and how few conventions it
> adheres to.
Yes but this console is fully backwards compatible, so it helps to keep the same design for familiarity when using older PSone games. Also, why give up on a hugely successful design and try to come up with something that looks like a cheap budget Star Trek style budget tainted device?
In keeping with the same joypad design Sony isn't
> allowing the PS2 games to become anything more than tarted up
> versions of something which could just as easily be done on the
> PsOne - which is probably partly why there are still so many games
> in development for the ageing machine.
Yes obviously the games will stay the same because you can only accelerate with the X button. What a load of rubbish!
Lack of standard-setting,
> home-grown software and a re-used joypad - that's where I think
> they've gone wrong. Anyone agree?
Covered that. Hardly original. All rubbish. Nexrt argument please.
> There's no point in denying it: so far the PS2 is a big pile of
> cack. Regardless of how much better it will or won't be when a
> handful of much awaited games arrive, at the moment almost everyone
> is disappointed with it.
Hello? Have you met a PS2 owner? Most of us love it. The only ones who are disappointed are those who`s mahines have failed them. Look at SSX, Starfighter, ZOE, TimeSplitters etc...
Some blame the lack of first class (or
> even good) software for it. Some blame the inundation of sequels,
> past, present and (seemingly) future. Both of these things often go
> hand in hand with each other but why have they happened in the first
> place?
Sequels? Yes there will be many, but not all of them are.
Onimusha
Dark Cloud
ZOE
Starfighter
Winning Eleven 5
World Rally Championship
Dropship
Red Faction
Virtual Ocean
Shadow of Memories
The Getaway
The Bouncer
There are also many conversions on the way from Dreamcast.
Also, its hardly a true sequel when its on a new machine. Otherwise Mario would be the least popular thing around. MGS2 and GT3 are the first in the next gen group. The Final Fantasies and Wipeout Fusion are also on the way.
Is the PS2 not enough of a leap forward to allow anything
> more than graphically tarted up sequels and spin-offs? The answer is
> no - and I don't think it has anything to do with the machine
> itself.
Try again. The answer is yes. Otherwise I don`t think it would be doing as well as it is.
The original PlayStation wasn't the most powerful console
> of the currently expiring generation. Nor did it have the best
> games. It did have by far the best marketing and, as much as it
> shouldn't, that counts for a great deal. Yeah, yeah, blah, blah
> everyone has posted a comment like that but bear with me and I do
> get more original.
I know. So does everyone else.
I think the PS2 is in trouble because of two
> things. Firstly, there is no in-house software to set a standard by.
> When the N64 was in development and everyone was still beavering
> away on their games for it behind closed doors, Nintendo unveiled
> Super Mario 64. The game blew people (particularly other developers)
> away so much that many games already well into production at that
> time underwent serious changes to try and compete with the quality
> of and ideas in this truly next generation title.
Sony are keeping some games to themselves as well, but I don`t think that `s important. It gives developers more freedom. Just because it isn`t actually from Sony themselves hasn`t been a problem before. - Gran Turismo. Metal Gear Solid Final Fantasy etc...
When it comes
> to Sony, they have always generally made rubbish games, so there is
> no home-grown standard to set to other people making games for their
> console.
The standard isn`t set by Sony, it is set by competitor consoles.
The other point is something that the PS2 has which I
> don't recall any other console ever having: a joypad lifted straigh
> from it's predecessor. Forget the analogue buttons which nobody
> seems to care about anymore and it's just a black PSOne pad. In each
> evolution of it's pads, Nintendo (and to a less extent, Sega) has
> come up with often quite dramatically different designs in an
> attempt to offer devolopers new ways for people to interact with
> their games in the hope that the games themselves can also evolve to
> a new level. Look at the GameCube pad and how few conventions it
> adheres to.
Yes but this console is fully backwards compatible, so it helps to keep the same design for familiarity when using older PSone games. Also, why give up on a hugely successful design and try to come up with something that looks like a cheap budget Star Trek style budget tainted device?
In keeping with the same joypad design Sony isn't
> allowing the PS2 games to become anything more than tarted up
> versions of something which could just as easily be done on the
> PsOne - which is probably partly why there are still so many games
> in development for the ageing machine.
Yes obviously the games will stay the same because you can only accelerate with the X button. What a load of rubbish!
Lack of standard-setting,
> home-grown software and a re-used joypad - that's where I think
> they've gone wrong. Anyone agree?
Covered that. Hardly original. All rubbish. Nexrt argument please.
To my knowledge people always seem to stop after saying the PS2 games are at fault without giving any reasons behind it.
More important is the fact that the PS2 was rushed. The dev kits were rushed. To begin u couldn't do Anti-Aliasing, the code was too hard and there wasn't enough VRAM. This is just poor judgement. Sony only even conceived the final PS2 after Sega stormed americas media with the DC software settup (this as at e3?). Suddenly sony make a console, and within a few months make dev kits. The demos they showed (like the 70 person Tekken fight scene!) were all fakes! And with only a few months till launch Sony were done!
Sony messed up. The PSone was great coz they game developers the best dev kits and support in the WORLD! They had to to pull people from the established brand of nintendo and sega! But now they take it for granted that they are number one!
Sonic
Sony messed up. The PSone was great coz they game developers the best dev kits and support in the WORLD! They had to to pull people from the established brand of nintendo and sega! But now they take it for granted that they are number one!
Sonic
Where did you say it got more original?
There's no point in denying it: so far the PS2 is a big pile of cack. Regardless of how much better it will or won't be when a handful of much awaited games arrive, at the moment almost everyone is disappointed with it.
Some blame the lack of first class (or even good) software for it. Some blame the inundation of sequels, past, present and (seemingly) future. Both of these things often go hand in hand with each other but why have they happened in the first place?
Is the PS2 not enough of a leap forward to allow anything more than graphically tarted up sequels and spin-offs? The answer is no - and I don't think it has anything to do with the machine itself.
The original PlayStation wasn't the most powerful console of the currently expiring generation. Nor did it have the best games. It did have by far the best marketing and, as much as it shouldn't, that counts for a great deal. Yeah, yeah, blah, blah everyone has posted a comment like that but bear with me and I do get more original.
I think the PS2 is in trouble because of two things. Firstly, there is no in-house software to set a standard by. When the N64 was in development and everyone was still beavering away on their games for it behind closed doors, Nintendo unveiled Super Mario 64. The game blew people (particularly other developers) away so much that many games already well into production at that time underwent serious changes to try and compete with the quality of and ideas in this truly next generation title.
When it comes to Sony, they have always generally made rubbish games, so there is no home-grown standard to set to other people making games for their console.
The other point is something that the PS2 has which I don't recall any other console ever having: a joypad lifted straigh from it's predecessor. Forget the analogue buttons which nobody seems to care about anymore and it's just a black PSOne pad. In each evolution of it's pads, Nintendo (and to a less extent, Sega) has come up with often quite dramatically different designs in an attempt to offer devolopers new ways for people to interact with their games in the hope that the games themselves can also evolve to a new level. Look at the GameCube pad and how few conventions it adheres to.
In keeping with the same joypad design Sony isn't allowing the PS2 games to become anything more than tarted up versions of something which could just as easily be done on the PsOne - which is probably partly why there are still so many games in development for the ageing machine.
Lack of standard-setting, home-grown software and a re-used joypad - that's where I think they've gone wrong. Anyone agree?
Some blame the lack of first class (or even good) software for it. Some blame the inundation of sequels, past, present and (seemingly) future. Both of these things often go hand in hand with each other but why have they happened in the first place?
Is the PS2 not enough of a leap forward to allow anything more than graphically tarted up sequels and spin-offs? The answer is no - and I don't think it has anything to do with the machine itself.
The original PlayStation wasn't the most powerful console of the currently expiring generation. Nor did it have the best games. It did have by far the best marketing and, as much as it shouldn't, that counts for a great deal. Yeah, yeah, blah, blah everyone has posted a comment like that but bear with me and I do get more original.
I think the PS2 is in trouble because of two things. Firstly, there is no in-house software to set a standard by. When the N64 was in development and everyone was still beavering away on their games for it behind closed doors, Nintendo unveiled Super Mario 64. The game blew people (particularly other developers) away so much that many games already well into production at that time underwent serious changes to try and compete with the quality of and ideas in this truly next generation title.
When it comes to Sony, they have always generally made rubbish games, so there is no home-grown standard to set to other people making games for their console.
The other point is something that the PS2 has which I don't recall any other console ever having: a joypad lifted straigh from it's predecessor. Forget the analogue buttons which nobody seems to care about anymore and it's just a black PSOne pad. In each evolution of it's pads, Nintendo (and to a less extent, Sega) has come up with often quite dramatically different designs in an attempt to offer devolopers new ways for people to interact with their games in the hope that the games themselves can also evolve to a new level. Look at the GameCube pad and how few conventions it adheres to.
In keeping with the same joypad design Sony isn't allowing the PS2 games to become anything more than tarted up versions of something which could just as easily be done on the PsOne - which is probably partly why there are still so many games in development for the ageing machine.
Lack of standard-setting, home-grown software and a re-used joypad - that's where I think they've gone wrong. Anyone agree?
Page: