The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
First - I'm very happy with my PS2. The graphics, sound, DVD (yes, even the DVD!) and variety of games are top notch. There is just one thing that bugs me....
Multitap.
Oh sony, why did you sell yourself short? Where was the forsight when it came to multiplayer gaming? I mean, OK I'm not saying we dont have 3 or 4 player games available, but be honest - how many of you have invested in a multitap and 2 more controllers....and how many of you have REALLY enjoyed a 4 player game on the PS2?
The gaming community is growing tenfold at the moment and more and more people want to share the interactivity the PS2 offers. But at what price?
I don't know about you, but I have fond memories of many a 4 player Goldeneye marathon in the hayday of the N64. Or staying up all night kicking butt on Mario Kart. Has the PS2 come close to that? Nope. Sorry, but its true.
Developers nowadays are including multiplayer levels purely as afterthoughts. Its not their fault, it's Sony's. Had the PS2 had four controller ports on the front of the machine, I am convinced this would be a different story. Sony has the developers behind them to produce some awesome multiplayer titles, its just a shame they decided to try and milk their customers that one last time.
There are no winners in this game.
Multitap.
Oh sony, why did you sell yourself short? Where was the forsight when it came to multiplayer gaming? I mean, OK I'm not saying we dont have 3 or 4 player games available, but be honest - how many of you have invested in a multitap and 2 more controllers....and how many of you have REALLY enjoyed a 4 player game on the PS2?
The gaming community is growing tenfold at the moment and more and more people want to share the interactivity the PS2 offers. But at what price?
I don't know about you, but I have fond memories of many a 4 player Goldeneye marathon in the hayday of the N64. Or staying up all night kicking butt on Mario Kart. Has the PS2 come close to that? Nope. Sorry, but its true.
Developers nowadays are including multiplayer levels purely as afterthoughts. Its not their fault, it's Sony's. Had the PS2 had four controller ports on the front of the machine, I am convinced this would be a different story. Sony has the developers behind them to produce some awesome multiplayer titles, its just a shame they decided to try and milk their customers that one last time.
There are no winners in this game.
Page:
First - I'm very happy with my PS2. The graphics, sound, DVD (yes, even the DVD!) and variety of games are top notch. There is just one thing that bugs me....
Multitap.
Oh sony, why did you sell yourself short? Where was the forsight when it came to multiplayer gaming? I mean, OK I'm not saying we dont have 3 or 4 player games available, but be honest - how many of you have invested in a multitap and 2 more controllers....and how many of you have REALLY enjoyed a 4 player game on the PS2?
The gaming community is growing tenfold at the moment and more and more people want to share the interactivity the PS2 offers. But at what price?
I don't know about you, but I have fond memories of many a 4 player Goldeneye marathon in the hayday of the N64. Or staying up all night kicking butt on Mario Kart. Has the PS2 come close to that? Nope. Sorry, but its true.
Developers nowadays are including multiplayer levels purely as afterthoughts. Its not their fault, it's Sony's. Had the PS2 had four controller ports on the front of the machine, I am convinced this would be a different story. Sony has the developers behind them to produce some awesome multiplayer titles, its just a shame they decided to try and milk their customers that one last time.
There are no winners in this game.
Multitap.
Oh sony, why did you sell yourself short? Where was the forsight when it came to multiplayer gaming? I mean, OK I'm not saying we dont have 3 or 4 player games available, but be honest - how many of you have invested in a multitap and 2 more controllers....and how many of you have REALLY enjoyed a 4 player game on the PS2?
The gaming community is growing tenfold at the moment and more and more people want to share the interactivity the PS2 offers. But at what price?
I don't know about you, but I have fond memories of many a 4 player Goldeneye marathon in the hayday of the N64. Or staying up all night kicking butt on Mario Kart. Has the PS2 come close to that? Nope. Sorry, but its true.
Developers nowadays are including multiplayer levels purely as afterthoughts. Its not their fault, it's Sony's. Had the PS2 had four controller ports on the front of the machine, I am convinced this would be a different story. Sony has the developers behind them to produce some awesome multiplayer titles, its just a shame they decided to try and milk their customers that one last time.
There are no winners in this game.
Chicken and Egg.
Are there few 4-player games because there are only two ports, or are there only two ports because there are few 4-player games?
Personally, I opt for the latter. The PS2 may only have two ports, but the fact is that there has always been the multi-tap option, right from the start - so developers know that they can create 4-player (or actually, up to 8-player with two multi-taps) games *if* they choose to.
I lay the blame at the door of the developers, as everything is there to allow multiplayer games. Multiplayer levels don't have to be an afterthought at all - they can include them in the game design from the beginning, just like every other system.
As for the 'expense', but the fact is the only 'extra' you have to buy compared to any other console is the multi-tap itself... you always have to buy extra controllers, unless ALL of your friends own the same console - which isn't the case with everyone. The multi-tap isn't that expensive, anyway, and if you're that set on multiplayer gaming, you won't hesitate to buy one anyway.
Having said all that, though, having only two ports doesn't bother me in the slightest. I find that anything more than a two-player split-screen makes a game unplayable anyway, even on my 28" Sony Wega. The only time I'd advocate more than two players is in a game where you're all on one big, main screen - such as the FIFA games.
Are there few 4-player games because there are only two ports, or are there only two ports because there are few 4-player games?
Personally, I opt for the latter. The PS2 may only have two ports, but the fact is that there has always been the multi-tap option, right from the start - so developers know that they can create 4-player (or actually, up to 8-player with two multi-taps) games *if* they choose to.
I lay the blame at the door of the developers, as everything is there to allow multiplayer games. Multiplayer levels don't have to be an afterthought at all - they can include them in the game design from the beginning, just like every other system.
As for the 'expense', but the fact is the only 'extra' you have to buy compared to any other console is the multi-tap itself... you always have to buy extra controllers, unless ALL of your friends own the same console - which isn't the case with everyone. The multi-tap isn't that expensive, anyway, and if you're that set on multiplayer gaming, you won't hesitate to buy one anyway.
Having said all that, though, having only two ports doesn't bother me in the slightest. I find that anything more than a two-player split-screen makes a game unplayable anyway, even on my 28" Sony Wega. The only time I'd advocate more than two players is in a game where you're all on one big, main screen - such as the FIFA games.
Wòókiee Møn§†€R wrote:
> Chicken and Egg.
Are there few 4-player games because there are
> only two ports, or are there only two ports because there are few
> 4-player games?
The PS2 was designed before any game so I personally dont feel the Chicken and Egg theory applies here. Sony made a concious decision to only include 2 ports.
The C&E theory does apply to what is happening now though. People are now reluctant to buy multitaps cos of poor games thus developers are reluctant to produce the games.
As for the 'expense', but the fact is
> the only 'extra' you have to buy compared to any other console is
> the multi-tap itself... you always have to buy extra controllers,
> unless ALL of your friends own the same console - which isn't the
> case with everyone. The multi-tap isn't that expensive, anyway, and
> if you're that set on multiplayer gaming, you won't hesitate to buy
> one anyway.
True about the expense, but it is difficult to justify if the games are no good.
Having said all that, though, having only two ports
> doesn't bother me in the slightest. I find that anything more than
> a two-player split-screen makes a game unplayable anyway, even on my
> 28" Sony Wega. The only time I'd advocate more than two
> players is in a game where you're all on one big, main screen - such
> as the FIFA games.
Did you never play an N64? Its not just about the graphics and speed ete etc it has a lot to do with playability and group entertainment. Sure Goldeneye was graphically lacking when you split the screen 4 ways, but who cares when you're having as much fun as that.
It just annoys me that a whole genre of gaming is sadly overlooked because sony wanted to capitalise on their support. Personally I think they must be regretting their choice. The words 'foot', 'themselves' and 'shot' spring to mind.
> Chicken and Egg.
Are there few 4-player games because there are
> only two ports, or are there only two ports because there are few
> 4-player games?
The PS2 was designed before any game so I personally dont feel the Chicken and Egg theory applies here. Sony made a concious decision to only include 2 ports.
The C&E theory does apply to what is happening now though. People are now reluctant to buy multitaps cos of poor games thus developers are reluctant to produce the games.
As for the 'expense', but the fact is
> the only 'extra' you have to buy compared to any other console is
> the multi-tap itself... you always have to buy extra controllers,
> unless ALL of your friends own the same console - which isn't the
> case with everyone. The multi-tap isn't that expensive, anyway, and
> if you're that set on multiplayer gaming, you won't hesitate to buy
> one anyway.
True about the expense, but it is difficult to justify if the games are no good.
Having said all that, though, having only two ports
> doesn't bother me in the slightest. I find that anything more than
> a two-player split-screen makes a game unplayable anyway, even on my
> 28" Sony Wega. The only time I'd advocate more than two
> players is in a game where you're all on one big, main screen - such
> as the FIFA games.
Did you never play an N64? Its not just about the graphics and speed ete etc it has a lot to do with playability and group entertainment. Sure Goldeneye was graphically lacking when you split the screen 4 ways, but who cares when you're having as much fun as that.
It just annoys me that a whole genre of gaming is sadly overlooked because sony wanted to capitalise on their support. Personally I think they must be regretting their choice. The words 'foot', 'themselves' and 'shot' spring to mind.
Craw wrote:
its just a
> shame they decided to try and milk their customers that one last
> time.
£25 for a memory card? we havent forgotten that one...
Really though, Wookie is right. Its only £20 for a tap, and there arent many games that support it. It's not like you cannot have a great game without the option of 4 players. To be honest there isnt all that many titles on the DC that use all 4 players, and for all of those that have come to the PS2, they can all use the tap.
Designers know that people who like playing 4 player allready have one. The PS1 tap is compatible, and the only thing stopping them is themselves.
its just a
> shame they decided to try and milk their customers that one last
> time.
£25 for a memory card? we havent forgotten that one...
Really though, Wookie is right. Its only £20 for a tap, and there arent many games that support it. It's not like you cannot have a great game without the option of 4 players. To be honest there isnt all that many titles on the DC that use all 4 players, and for all of those that have come to the PS2, they can all use the tap.
Designers know that people who like playing 4 player allready have one. The PS1 tap is compatible, and the only thing stopping them is themselves.
Craw wrote:
> The PS2 was designed before any game so I personally dont
> feel the Chicken and Egg theory applies here.
Yes, but you always knew - as did the developers - that the multi-tap would be available.
> People are now reluctant to buy multitaps cos of poor games thus developers are
> reluctant to produce the games.
"If you build it, they will come." You're right that people won't buy a tap if there are no worthwhile games, but in this instance I believe that the game HAS to come first. People won't buy it with nothing to play, but make a good enough game, and they *will* buy it.
> Did you never play an N64? Its not just about the graphics
> and speed ete etc it has a lot to do with playability and group
> entertainment.
No, for the same reason you give for the multi-tap - it never had enough games that interested me. I was going to buy one to play CBFD, but when I saw the game was £50 even with SR's discount, I didn't bother.
he thing is, you can have a perfectly good 4-player game with only two ports - it all depends how the game is structured. Tekken Tag's 4-player Tag Tournament option is a prime example.
> Personally I think they must be regretting their choice. The words
> 'foot', 'themselves' and 'shot' spring to mind.
Oh, I wouldn't have thought so. The current and continuing level of PS2 sales seems to indicate that, at the end of the day, most people aren't really that bothered! :-)
> The PS2 was designed before any game so I personally dont
> feel the Chicken and Egg theory applies here.
Yes, but you always knew - as did the developers - that the multi-tap would be available.
> People are now reluctant to buy multitaps cos of poor games thus developers are
> reluctant to produce the games.
"If you build it, they will come." You're right that people won't buy a tap if there are no worthwhile games, but in this instance I believe that the game HAS to come first. People won't buy it with nothing to play, but make a good enough game, and they *will* buy it.
> Did you never play an N64? Its not just about the graphics
> and speed ete etc it has a lot to do with playability and group
> entertainment.
No, for the same reason you give for the multi-tap - it never had enough games that interested me. I was going to buy one to play CBFD, but when I saw the game was £50 even with SR's discount, I didn't bother.
he thing is, you can have a perfectly good 4-player game with only two ports - it all depends how the game is structured. Tekken Tag's 4-player Tag Tournament option is a prime example.
> Personally I think they must be regretting their choice. The words
> 'foot', 'themselves' and 'shot' spring to mind.
Oh, I wouldn't have thought so. The current and continuing level of PS2 sales seems to indicate that, at the end of the day, most people aren't really that bothered! :-)
So is the PS1 Multitap compatible with the PS2? If it is then the 4 controllers I have will work too.
I've heard a couple of stories about this...
One says that the PS1 multitap is NOT compatible.
The other says that the PS1 multitap IS compatible, but only with PS1 controllers, not the DualShock 2.
Not having either a PS1 or PS2 multitap, I can't tell you which is actually correct.
One says that the PS1 multitap is NOT compatible.
The other says that the PS1 multitap IS compatible, but only with PS1 controllers, not the DualShock 2.
Not having either a PS1 or PS2 multitap, I can't tell you which is actually correct.
I personally don't like Dual Shock controllers so if it's compatible, it should save me money.
Wòókiee Møn§†€R wrote:
> Craw wrote:
> The PS2 was designed before any game so I
> personally dont
> feel the Chicken and Egg theory applies
> here.
Yes, but you always knew - as did the developers - that the
> multi-tap would be available.
But you have to admit that it was considered an afterthought. After all, its an add on. Just like the usb keyboard and mouse that work with about 1 game.
> People are now reluctant to
> buy multitaps cos of poor games thus developers are
> reluctant
> to produce the games.
"If you build it, they will
> come." You're right that people won't buy a tap if there are
> no worthwhile games, but in this instance I believe that the game
> HAS to come first. People won't buy it with nothing to play, but
> make a good enough game, and they *will* buy it.
Ok, we're 8 months into the ps2's life and I haven't heard of any multiplayer game out or due to be released that sounds like a worthwhile contender.
he thing is, you can have a
> perfectly good 4-player game with only two ports - it all depends
> how the game is structured. Tekken Tag's 4-player Tag Tournament
> option is a prime example.
Its not a true 4 player game though, is it?
> Personally I think they must be
> regretting their choice. The words
> 'foot', 'themselves' and
> 'shot' spring to mind.
Oh, I wouldn't have thought so. The
> current and continuing level of PS2 sales seems to indicate that, at
> the end of the day, most people aren't really that bothered! :-)
This is my point. I think because of the inclusion of the multitap, there is a general apathy from designers and gamers alike. I just think its a shame thats all. I hope Sony prove me wrong and produce some blinding 3 & 4 player games.
> Craw wrote:
> The PS2 was designed before any game so I
> personally dont
> feel the Chicken and Egg theory applies
> here.
Yes, but you always knew - as did the developers - that the
> multi-tap would be available.
But you have to admit that it was considered an afterthought. After all, its an add on. Just like the usb keyboard and mouse that work with about 1 game.
> People are now reluctant to
> buy multitaps cos of poor games thus developers are
> reluctant
> to produce the games.
"If you build it, they will
> come." You're right that people won't buy a tap if there are
> no worthwhile games, but in this instance I believe that the game
> HAS to come first. People won't buy it with nothing to play, but
> make a good enough game, and they *will* buy it.
Ok, we're 8 months into the ps2's life and I haven't heard of any multiplayer game out or due to be released that sounds like a worthwhile contender.
he thing is, you can have a
> perfectly good 4-player game with only two ports - it all depends
> how the game is structured. Tekken Tag's 4-player Tag Tournament
> option is a prime example.
Its not a true 4 player game though, is it?
> Personally I think they must be
> regretting their choice. The words
> 'foot', 'themselves' and
> 'shot' spring to mind.
Oh, I wouldn't have thought so. The
> current and continuing level of PS2 sales seems to indicate that, at
> the end of the day, most people aren't really that bothered! :-)
This is my point. I think because of the inclusion of the multitap, there is a general apathy from designers and gamers alike. I just think its a shame thats all. I hope Sony prove me wrong and produce some blinding 3 & 4 player games.
Craw wrote:
> But you have to admit that it was considered an afterthought.
> After all, its an add on.
Sorry, I don't agree. Everything you plug in to the PS2 is an add-on; you have to buy a second controller for every console simply for a 2-player game, but do you consider them an afterthought?
PS1 had two ports and multi-taps. If it was an afterthought then, why not include 4 on the PS2? It's a conscious decision by Sony, even if it is only to make a bit more money.
At least with both PlayStations, you had the option to have 8 players; on other machines, you can't have more than 4.
> Just like the usb keyboard and mouse that work with about 1 game.
This is where your argument falls flat on its face.
Although they are coming, Sony do not currently sell their own keyboard and mouse. However, it has been known since before the PS2 was launched even in Japan that it had two standard USB ports. Developers of games such as Quake 3 and Red Faction - even TimeSplitters, the original PS2 FPS - could *easily* have included keyboard and mouse support, as the peripherals are widely available. Yet they didn't.
As I said earlier, the bulk of the blame lies with developers and not Sony.
> But you have to admit that it was considered an afterthought.
> After all, its an add on.
Sorry, I don't agree. Everything you plug in to the PS2 is an add-on; you have to buy a second controller for every console simply for a 2-player game, but do you consider them an afterthought?
PS1 had two ports and multi-taps. If it was an afterthought then, why not include 4 on the PS2? It's a conscious decision by Sony, even if it is only to make a bit more money.
At least with both PlayStations, you had the option to have 8 players; on other machines, you can't have more than 4.
> Just like the usb keyboard and mouse that work with about 1 game.
This is where your argument falls flat on its face.
Although they are coming, Sony do not currently sell their own keyboard and mouse. However, it has been known since before the PS2 was launched even in Japan that it had two standard USB ports. Developers of games such as Quake 3 and Red Faction - even TimeSplitters, the original PS2 FPS - could *easily* have included keyboard and mouse support, as the peripherals are widely available. Yet they didn't.
As I said earlier, the bulk of the blame lies with developers and not Sony.
Page: