The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
http://special.reserve.co.uk/news/story.php?id=2646
Hmm... yeah, well, there it is.
It's not the new PS3. No technological updates and the same chipset as the PS2, but with a few nice additions.
If it had to be compared to anything, it'd have to be the GBA SP. A needless upgrade that looks nicer.
I won't be forking out for it, as I'd rather just keep the games for my PS2. Still, it'll sell tremendously well, because, after all, Sony Computer Entertainment items do just that.
Hmm... yeah, well, there it is.
It's not the new PS3. No technological updates and the same chipset as the PS2, but with a few nice additions.
If it had to be compared to anything, it'd have to be the GBA SP. A needless upgrade that looks nicer.
I won't be forking out for it, as I'd rather just keep the games for my PS2. Still, it'll sell tremendously well, because, after all, Sony Computer Entertainment items do just that.
Page:
lalakersrule wrote:
> The only thing it 'trounces' the PS2 on in my opinion is graphics. And
> as i'm not as bothered about graphics as the newer generation of games
> players who got involved with gaming with the PS1 are, i'm not really
> fussed about it.
This is an interesting U-turn from an obvious Sony fanboy. When the Dreamcast was out with its high-quality gameplay, all you lot were bothered about is technical specs. Now that the boot is on the other foot, it's quite amusing to watch you change your fickle minds about the importance of gameplay over graphics.
Regardless, I am not here to start an argument with Sony fanboys. Instead, I am here to ask this question - now that this new product is called PSX, what are all of the gaming press going to do? They have been insisting on calling the first PlayStation 'PSX' for years, even though this was obviously not its name or even codename. 'PSX' was the codename for the Super Nintendo's CD add-on which was being developed by Sony. Relations turned sour and Sony decided to do it alone. They renamed the console the PlayStation, but the stupid media just couldn't let go of the 'PSX' name. Even this website was guilty of it.
So. Now we actually have a product that is *officially* called 'PSX' and the gaming sites/magazines actually *have* to change their naming of the first console at last. Egg on your face, journalists, and about time too. However, would it have been better to name it something that would not be confused for an age-old console? Even if this confusion only stems from the stupidity of the gaming media, it could still be there for any gamer who is not worth his salt.
> The only thing it 'trounces' the PS2 on in my opinion is graphics. And
> as i'm not as bothered about graphics as the newer generation of games
> players who got involved with gaming with the PS1 are, i'm not really
> fussed about it.
This is an interesting U-turn from an obvious Sony fanboy. When the Dreamcast was out with its high-quality gameplay, all you lot were bothered about is technical specs. Now that the boot is on the other foot, it's quite amusing to watch you change your fickle minds about the importance of gameplay over graphics.
Regardless, I am not here to start an argument with Sony fanboys. Instead, I am here to ask this question - now that this new product is called PSX, what are all of the gaming press going to do? They have been insisting on calling the first PlayStation 'PSX' for years, even though this was obviously not its name or even codename. 'PSX' was the codename for the Super Nintendo's CD add-on which was being developed by Sony. Relations turned sour and Sony decided to do it alone. They renamed the console the PlayStation, but the stupid media just couldn't let go of the 'PSX' name. Even this website was guilty of it.
So. Now we actually have a product that is *officially* called 'PSX' and the gaming sites/magazines actually *have* to change their naming of the first console at last. Egg on your face, journalists, and about time too. However, would it have been better to name it something that would not be confused for an age-old console? Even if this confusion only stems from the stupidity of the gaming media, it could still be there for any gamer who is not worth his salt.
lalakersrule wrote:
> The only thing it 'trounces' the PS2 on in my opinion is graphics. And
> as i'm not as bothered about graphics as the newer generation of games
> players who got involved with gaming with the PS1 are, i'm not really
> fussed about it. As long as a game has good gameplay that's all i'm
> bothered about and i also require my console to have a large varied
> selection of games. All i ever hear from the xbox owners and the only
> game i'm interested in from that console is Halo but with it coming
> onto PC i won't be buying a Xbox any time soon. I'm more likely to buy
> a Gamecube.
I couldnt have said it better myself, so much so im actually getting a GC tommorow, but Im still not going to neglect my PS2.
> The only thing it 'trounces' the PS2 on in my opinion is graphics. And
> as i'm not as bothered about graphics as the newer generation of games
> players who got involved with gaming with the PS1 are, i'm not really
> fussed about it. As long as a game has good gameplay that's all i'm
> bothered about and i also require my console to have a large varied
> selection of games. All i ever hear from the xbox owners and the only
> game i'm interested in from that console is Halo but with it coming
> onto PC i won't be buying a Xbox any time soon. I'm more likely to buy
> a Gamecube.
I couldnt have said it better myself, so much so im actually getting a GC tommorow, but Im still not going to neglect my PS2.
Manda†are wrote:
> I detect a fanboy notable
> Get the ninty!
---
Who, me?
:-D
> I detect a fanboy notable
> Get the ninty!
---
Who, me?
:-D
The only thing it 'trounces' the PS2 on in my opinion is graphics. And as i'm not as bothered about graphics as the newer generation of games players who got involved with gaming with the PS1 are, i'm not really fussed about it. As long as a game has good gameplay that's all i'm bothered about and i also require my console to have a large varied selection of games. All i ever hear from the xbox owners and the only game i'm interested in from that console is Halo but with it coming onto PC i won't be buying a Xbox any time soon. I'm more likely to buy a Gamecube.
Except the XBox trounces the PS2 on every other count.....
*puts hand on mouth*
*runs*
*Cleans himself*
Fanboy is still in me somewhere......
*puts hand on mouth*
*runs*
*Cleans himself*
Fanboy is still in me somewhere......
Edgy wrote:
> lalakersrule wrote:
> I especially liked the talk of a 120GB hard drive. That should shut
> them xbox owners up.
>
> Why?
>
> I've only just used over 10GB on my computer, and, although I'm not
> sure how much space I have left on my Xbox, it is still over the
> '50,000' blocks that it claims it has, which means I'm hardly running
> out.
>
> The 120GB hard drive is just to show off and make it sound the better
> console, when really, it's nothing special, just a little more space
> which will probably never be fully filled.
Because X-box owners usually have 2 weapons in defending their console. One of them is Halo and the other is that they have a HD while we only have small 8MB memory cards. With the release of the new PSX it shuts them up on both accounts seeing as Halo is going to PC and now we'll have this much bigger HD in which you'd be hard pushed to run out of space unless you really like your movies.
> lalakersrule wrote:
> I especially liked the talk of a 120GB hard drive. That should shut
> them xbox owners up.
>
> Why?
>
> I've only just used over 10GB on my computer, and, although I'm not
> sure how much space I have left on my Xbox, it is still over the
> '50,000' blocks that it claims it has, which means I'm hardly running
> out.
>
> The 120GB hard drive is just to show off and make it sound the better
> console, when really, it's nothing special, just a little more space
> which will probably never be fully filled.
Because X-box owners usually have 2 weapons in defending their console. One of them is Halo and the other is that they have a HD while we only have small 8MB memory cards. With the release of the new PSX it shuts them up on both accounts seeing as Halo is going to PC and now we'll have this much bigger HD in which you'd be hard pushed to run out of space unless you really like your movies.
I'll wait and see if any if the games warrant the outlay first - i.e. if games start requiring the HD.
At the moment, I'm more excited about the PSP.
At the moment, I'm more excited about the PSP.
ok so its a ps2 with HD and NA supplied in it
so what
it'd be far simpler to just release the HD and NA to the masses
so what
it'd be far simpler to just release the HD and NA to the masses
Dr Duck wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> The 120GB hard drive is just to show off and make it sound the
> better
> console, when really, it's nothing special, just a little more space
> which will probably never be fully filled.
>
>
> I'm not so sure, if it's being used to record tv...
> Still, probably larger than needed, especially if you can burn stuff
> to dvd instead of saving it...
Still, 120 GB?
A 2 hour movie is only 3 - 4 gigabytes. that's 30 - 40 2 hour movies
> Edgy wrote:
> The 120GB hard drive is just to show off and make it sound the
> better
> console, when really, it's nothing special, just a little more space
> which will probably never be fully filled.
>
>
> I'm not so sure, if it's being used to record tv...
> Still, probably larger than needed, especially if you can burn stuff
> to dvd instead of saving it...
Still, 120 GB?
A 2 hour movie is only 3 - 4 gigabytes. that's 30 - 40 2 hour movies
Manda†are wrote:
> I detect a fanboy notable
> Get the ninty!
Because I'm not sure if I like it yet?
> I detect a fanboy notable
> Get the ninty!
Because I'm not sure if I like it yet?
Page: