The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
the reason for PSX is that this was the code name of the Playstation... either when Ninty were in on the act, or after Sony took over.
Anyway, the fact remains... it took sony months to think of the name PS2... maybe they should have been making better dev kits?
Sonic
Anyway, the fact remains... it took sony months to think of the name PS2... maybe they should have been making better dev kits?
Sonic
psx.ign.com
Idiots.
GameCube would be original, if it was correct. GameCuboid is better.
Idiots.
GameCube would be original, if it was correct. GameCuboid is better.
SonicRav wrote:
> Sony DEMANDED that mags call it the "NGPS" (next-gen Play
> station)... and claimed that they had been working on the name for a
> while...
Until any company decides on a name, they won't want a magazine speculating. The fact is, Sony *did* spend some time on the naming of the machine, but eventually decided to stick with the PlayStation name simply because it was the best-known console name in the world. And no, I'm not including hand-helds.
Simple example of why they didn't want the name bandied around before they decided on it: it leads to people using the wrong name. For months before its release, the magazines were calling the original PlayStation the "PSX". Sony NEVER used this name themselves - they couldn't, because 'PSX' is actually the copyright of another company. However, even today, people - including fans of the machine and magazines - STILL incorrectly refer to the original PlayStation as 'PSX'.
Everyone assumed that the new machine would be called PlayStation 2, and although that did turn out to be the case for the reasons stated above, the PS1 situation has proved that it would have been very difficult to get people to use the correct name.
> ooohhhhh.. PS2... that's original!
As is Gameboy Advance, I'm sure you'll agree.
> Sony DEMANDED that mags call it the "NGPS" (next-gen Play
> station)... and claimed that they had been working on the name for a
> while...
Until any company decides on a name, they won't want a magazine speculating. The fact is, Sony *did* spend some time on the naming of the machine, but eventually decided to stick with the PlayStation name simply because it was the best-known console name in the world. And no, I'm not including hand-helds.
Simple example of why they didn't want the name bandied around before they decided on it: it leads to people using the wrong name. For months before its release, the magazines were calling the original PlayStation the "PSX". Sony NEVER used this name themselves - they couldn't, because 'PSX' is actually the copyright of another company. However, even today, people - including fans of the machine and magazines - STILL incorrectly refer to the original PlayStation as 'PSX'.
Everyone assumed that the new machine would be called PlayStation 2, and although that did turn out to be the case for the reasons stated above, the PS1 situation has proved that it would have been very difficult to get people to use the correct name.
> ooohhhhh.. PS2... that's original!
As is Gameboy Advance, I'm sure you'll agree.
SonicRav wrote:
> Fact: Although you may say "there aren't
> many games to make 4 ports viable," there would be FAR more
> games that utilised 4 player options if Sony had given developers 4
> ports.
Fact: However you achieve it, the any of the consoles can have 4 controllers attached. If you create s single-player game, you code for one port. If you create a 4-player game, you code for 4 ports. Whether those ports are internal or accessed via a multi-tap is irrelevant; the fact is, the machine can support 4-player games if the developers care to allow it.
> Fact: Although you may say "there aren't
> many games to make 4 ports viable," there would be FAR more
> games that utilised 4 player options if Sony had given developers 4
> ports.
Fact: However you achieve it, the any of the consoles can have 4 controllers attached. If you create s single-player game, you code for one port. If you create a 4-player game, you code for 4 ports. Whether those ports are internal or accessed via a multi-tap is irrelevant; the fact is, the machine can support 4-player games if the developers care to allow it.
Oh, and Sony has decided that the future of multiplayer games is the net!
Oh, and Craw... don't forget that after months of magazines refering to the new PSX console at thr "playstation 2", Sony DEMANDED that mags call it the "NGPS" (next-gen Play station)... and claimed that they had been working on the name for a while... ooohhhhh.. PS2... that's original!
Sonic
Oh, and Craw... don't forget that after months of magazines refering to the new PSX console at thr "playstation 2", Sony DEMANDED that mags call it the "NGPS" (next-gen Play station)... and claimed that they had been working on the name for a while... ooohhhhh.. PS2... that's original!
Sonic
Fact: N64, DC, GC, Xbox all have 4 control ports.
Fact: PS2 does not... even though it was made after 4 player gaming became big thanks to the 64.
Fact: Although you may say "there aren't many games to make 4 ports viable," there would be FAR more games that utilised 4 player options if Sony had given developers 4 ports.
Sonic
Fact: PS2 does not... even though it was made after 4 player gaming became big thanks to the 64.
Fact: Although you may say "there aren't many games to make 4 ports viable," there would be FAR more games that utilised 4 player options if Sony had given developers 4 ports.
Sonic
Turbonutter wrote:
> The PS2 design looked better with 2 ports, that's why.
Of course! After months, years even of R&D, some bod in Sony Japan turned to the management and said 'screw the customers, lets just make the thing look good'. How foolish of me....
> The PS2 design looked better with 2 ports, that's why.
Of course! After months, years even of R&D, some bod in Sony Japan turned to the management and said 'screw the customers, lets just make the thing look good'. How foolish of me....
The PS2 design looked better with 2 ports, that's why.
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?
No, because they weren't considered an afterthought by the developers - it would be pretty naive of them to not consider a 2 player game. The simple point i am making is that 4 ports would have been better all round. For developers and gamers alike. It eliminates the need to justify buying a multitap.
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.
See above.
At least with both PlayStations, you
> had the option to have 8 players; on other machines, you can't have
> more than 4.
If there are no decent 4 player games available, I certainly wont be holding my breath (or wasting my money) for 8 player games.
> 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.
And we all get disappointed that non of these peripherals are of any use.
As I said earlier, the bulk of the
> blame lies with developers and not Sony.
I see it as a two way street. IMO. :)
> 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?
No, because they weren't considered an afterthought by the developers - it would be pretty naive of them to not consider a 2 player game. The simple point i am making is that 4 ports would have been better all round. For developers and gamers alike. It eliminates the need to justify buying a multitap.
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.
See above.
At least with both PlayStations, you
> had the option to have 8 players; on other machines, you can't have
> more than 4.
If there are no decent 4 player games available, I certainly wont be holding my breath (or wasting my money) for 8 player games.
> 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.
And we all get disappointed that non of these peripherals are of any use.
As I said earlier, the bulk of the
> blame lies with developers and not Sony.
I see it as a two way street. IMO. :)
I have a multitap and enjoy kiling my mates/brothers at Timesplitters and Tekken Tag. But there is a possibility that the PS2 COULDN'T have 4 joypad ports because they wanted the system to be compatible with PSOne games. As you know the PsOne only has 2 ports, so having 4 would send the system nuts. That is just a possibility.
Page: