The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
My faith in Sony isn't quite that bad yet, but it is getting pretty near to breaking point.
What seemed like THE console back in 2001 is now looking like the modern day Saturn. Yes, Sony were first past the chequered flag with a "next-gen" console but at what cost to its loyal fans ?
Problems have plagued what should have been a console that no one, not Mr Gates or Mario, should have been able to take on. They include;
1) RGB Scart playback of DVD's immobilised because of ridiculous copying worries. As many will know cheap VCD copies of new films are readily obtainable in about every town and city of the country. This is a poor excuse for disabling such a feature.
2) Numerous faults and incompatability problems with TV's and DVD discs, and certain PSONE titles such as Metal Gear Solid VR Missions. For what was a £300 console it isn't good enough.
3) Weak launch titles and many "great graphics where is the lastability/gameplay" titles. "INSERT GAME HERE" is dissapointing is a regualr topic for PS2 releases on just this same forum. Devil May Cry looked cool, but the novelty of the graphics wears away to reveal a game with little lastability. MGS 2, on import anyway is great to play, until you finish it, and the gameplay is nothing much above the original. There were supposed to be innovative features in this game but everyone knows them so what is the point, we all know about using the pron magazines to distract guards, that'sa gimmick, not innovation.
4) Reliance on "the next big thing". Owners have gone from looking forward to GT3, to Devil May Cry, to MGS 2...where is the next BIG game after FFX ? Even when a game is set for launch release dates are messed around with the excuse that added feature are to be added. Many of these big titles disappoint new owners - Resident Evil Code Veronica is a common one. Its good, but not WOW ! Many supposedly excellent titles fall way short when they come to a review. Headhunter was supposed to be nearly as good as MGS2, Dropship has graphics which make it look like a launch game...because it should have been..., Thunderhawk was rubbish, Ridge Racer 5 a poor conversion and on and on. Developers which were just PS2 developers are hedging their bets; GTA 3, and porbably 4 is going to the Gamecube, the next Resident Evil is another Gamecube, Buffy - X Box and Gamecube, GT3 and GT4 to the PC. I won't be surprised if I hear what sounds like a band playing as it slips underwater.
I'm not someone who chops and changes consoles; I owned a PSONE for 4 years, then this PC and I bought the PS2 last year. But the Gamecube, and X Box (shudder) are looking pretty good, HALO is amazing and like no shooter on PS2. Many PS2 owners are attacking (verbaly thankfully :) ) supporters of these consoles with ideas ranging from "its purple", "you have to buy a DVD upgrade" to "there are no decent games". There are also many more, less to the point ones which serve to show little.
The fact is that both of these consoles have games by the bucketload, for launch, and come christmas Nintendo and Microsoft will be rolling out their BIG titles. These will look great, sound great and have massive advertising campaigns. Sure, people love to hate Microsoft, but nearly everyone buys their software and OS. Nintendo have a reputation for cute games, but they sell.
Sony need a lot of good, lastable games quickly, and not just shoot em ups and driving games by the bucketload, which is what we are getting now. They need to sort the PS2's technical problems once and for all, and get rid of the green screen scart problem. They need to do much more... and probably won't because I suspect that it's dawning on them that it is too late, the Microsoft/Nintendo train is steaming at full speed towards Sony, who are playing on the track....
Or am I wrong ? Prove it :)
What seemed like THE console back in 2001 is now looking like the modern day Saturn. Yes, Sony were first past the chequered flag with a "next-gen" console but at what cost to its loyal fans ?
Problems have plagued what should have been a console that no one, not Mr Gates or Mario, should have been able to take on. They include;
1) RGB Scart playback of DVD's immobilised because of ridiculous copying worries. As many will know cheap VCD copies of new films are readily obtainable in about every town and city of the country. This is a poor excuse for disabling such a feature.
2) Numerous faults and incompatability problems with TV's and DVD discs, and certain PSONE titles such as Metal Gear Solid VR Missions. For what was a £300 console it isn't good enough.
3) Weak launch titles and many "great graphics where is the lastability/gameplay" titles. "INSERT GAME HERE" is dissapointing is a regualr topic for PS2 releases on just this same forum. Devil May Cry looked cool, but the novelty of the graphics wears away to reveal a game with little lastability. MGS 2, on import anyway is great to play, until you finish it, and the gameplay is nothing much above the original. There were supposed to be innovative features in this game but everyone knows them so what is the point, we all know about using the pron magazines to distract guards, that'sa gimmick, not innovation.
4) Reliance on "the next big thing". Owners have gone from looking forward to GT3, to Devil May Cry, to MGS 2...where is the next BIG game after FFX ? Even when a game is set for launch release dates are messed around with the excuse that added feature are to be added. Many of these big titles disappoint new owners - Resident Evil Code Veronica is a common one. Its good, but not WOW ! Many supposedly excellent titles fall way short when they come to a review. Headhunter was supposed to be nearly as good as MGS2, Dropship has graphics which make it look like a launch game...because it should have been..., Thunderhawk was rubbish, Ridge Racer 5 a poor conversion and on and on. Developers which were just PS2 developers are hedging their bets; GTA 3, and porbably 4 is going to the Gamecube, the next Resident Evil is another Gamecube, Buffy - X Box and Gamecube, GT3 and GT4 to the PC. I won't be surprised if I hear what sounds like a band playing as it slips underwater.
I'm not someone who chops and changes consoles; I owned a PSONE for 4 years, then this PC and I bought the PS2 last year. But the Gamecube, and X Box (shudder) are looking pretty good, HALO is amazing and like no shooter on PS2. Many PS2 owners are attacking (verbaly thankfully :) ) supporters of these consoles with ideas ranging from "its purple", "you have to buy a DVD upgrade" to "there are no decent games". There are also many more, less to the point ones which serve to show little.
The fact is that both of these consoles have games by the bucketload, for launch, and come christmas Nintendo and Microsoft will be rolling out their BIG titles. These will look great, sound great and have massive advertising campaigns. Sure, people love to hate Microsoft, but nearly everyone buys their software and OS. Nintendo have a reputation for cute games, but they sell.
Sony need a lot of good, lastable games quickly, and not just shoot em ups and driving games by the bucketload, which is what we are getting now. They need to sort the PS2's technical problems once and for all, and get rid of the green screen scart problem. They need to do much more... and probably won't because I suspect that it's dawning on them that it is too late, the Microsoft/Nintendo train is steaming at full speed towards Sony, who are playing on the track....
Or am I wrong ? Prove it :)
Page:
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
>You are joking... surely???
Nope. Like Wookie says, the leap from PS2 to X Box is not really noticeable. Any gamers hwo couldnt tell the difference between RR4 + 5 probably need eye sight tests as it was much smoother and faster. Rushed yes, but it was ahead of the latest arcade version by miles. Again, DOA2 was just like an arcade game, and could be played at home. It beat any PSONE fighter by miles. In many ways its better than the Dreamcast version, especially as you can still buy the PS2 :) ( if you can find one lol) Dreamcast was good, but not good enough obviously !
>You are joking... surely???
Nope. Like Wookie says, the leap from PS2 to X Box is not really noticeable. Any gamers hwo couldnt tell the difference between RR4 + 5 probably need eye sight tests as it was much smoother and faster. Rushed yes, but it was ahead of the latest arcade version by miles. Again, DOA2 was just like an arcade game, and could be played at home. It beat any PSONE fighter by miles. In many ways its better than the Dreamcast version, especially as you can still buy the PS2 :) ( if you can find one lol) Dreamcast was good, but not good enough obviously !
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> I may even have to sell my PS2...
Well, it is of course your choice - and may not be a bad move, as you have never seemed particularly happy with it.
The only pre-launch truly photo-realistic demo I recall seeing for PS2 was GT3, and that actually turned out BETTER than it looked.
All the rest were rolling demos of things like Tekken Tag, The Bouncer, and some non-game demos featuring Crash Bandicoot being chased by penguins, an old mans face, and some pretty fancy particle effects.
I think Stanger's comments regarding the early PS2 games looking amazing are in regard to the jump from the 32-bit PSone games to the PS2 - they were a great improvement over PS1 titles, though not as great as 32-bit was over the 16-bit platforms.
Similarly, there is no significant leap forward between the appearance of PS2 games and the other platforms. By this I mean that the jump from 16-bit to 32-bit was also mostly a leap from 2D games to 3D games - a major change which made everyone sit up and go "Wow!"
There is no similarly significant jump between the PS2, Xbox and Gamecube - we know that all of the machines can supply similar gaming experiences on all fronts - audio, visual and gameply. The main differences really lie in the software available, and each platform provides plenty of its own reasons to own one.
> I may even have to sell my PS2...
Well, it is of course your choice - and may not be a bad move, as you have never seemed particularly happy with it.
The only pre-launch truly photo-realistic demo I recall seeing for PS2 was GT3, and that actually turned out BETTER than it looked.
All the rest were rolling demos of things like Tekken Tag, The Bouncer, and some non-game demos featuring Crash Bandicoot being chased by penguins, an old mans face, and some pretty fancy particle effects.
I think Stanger's comments regarding the early PS2 games looking amazing are in regard to the jump from the 32-bit PSone games to the PS2 - they were a great improvement over PS1 titles, though not as great as 32-bit was over the 16-bit platforms.
Similarly, there is no significant leap forward between the appearance of PS2 games and the other platforms. By this I mean that the jump from 16-bit to 32-bit was also mostly a leap from 2D games to 3D games - a major change which made everyone sit up and go "Wow!"
There is no similarly significant jump between the PS2, Xbox and Gamecube - we know that all of the machines can supply similar gaming experiences on all fronts - audio, visual and gameply. The main differences really lie in the software available, and each platform provides plenty of its own reasons to own one.
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
Halo was
> very playable, but, as you say, it is not much different from many other FPS
> shooters already out there. For me there was not the WOW factor that I got from
> seeing advance PS2 titles like Ridge Racer 5 and DOA2.
You are joking... surely???
RR5 was though by many to be the poorest example of a company pushing through games for launch- it had jaggies, nothing different to RR4, and many gamers couldn't tell the difference between this and a PS1 game!
As for DOA2, doe to the anti-aliasing issue, the game did actually have WORSE garphics than the DC version! The only difference was that the PS2 version had extra costumes (like the sailor suites for the ladies;))
Sonic
Halo was
> very playable, but, as you say, it is not much different from many other FPS
> shooters already out there. For me there was not the WOW factor that I got from
> seeing advance PS2 titles like Ridge Racer 5 and DOA2.
You are joking... surely???
RR5 was though by many to be the poorest example of a company pushing through games for launch- it had jaggies, nothing different to RR4, and many gamers couldn't tell the difference between this and a PS1 game!
As for DOA2, doe to the anti-aliasing issue, the game did actually have WORSE garphics than the DC version! The only difference was that the PS2 version had extra costumes (like the sailor suites for the ladies;))
Sonic
Well, I have to totally agree with the premise of Stranger in Paradises' argument.
Although the points about faulty consoles at launch, and some PS1 games are of no relevance now, the actual quality of the console really is far lower than it would have been...
You see, when the console was first announced we were given REAL IN GAME demos showing 70 people watching a Tekken street brawl, with everyone cheering and being modelled perfectly. We were shown photorealistic graphics that were just first generation games. We were promised the world.
In reality, the console launch really showed Sony's true colours. Of course, the launch games weren't really representative of what the console could do- developers often rush games out for launch.
The fact is that we are still to see anything near what Sony promised us.
Oh, and don't go thinking that I'm just saying that the console didn't live up to the huge hype- the console simply didn't live up to the basics. The console design was rushed with Sony just trying to take attention from the Dreamcast's impending American launch (which went down a storm with $100 million being taken on day one!). Sony game developers PC dev kits at first to make the game demos on... the PC kits being absolutely nothing like the final dev kits!
Even simple things like Anti-aliasing took ages to "solve" (and even now, I prefer on hardware antialiasing DC style!).
But most of all, the game simply haven't performed. There are some "good" games, but no absolute must have brilliant titles. Developers seem to be "playing it safe" and just reusing old development ideas (maybe middleware is to blame???).
And still we wait for the big titles like MGS2 (which, from what I've heard is great, but not a classic).
I may even have to sell my PS2...
Sonic
Although the points about faulty consoles at launch, and some PS1 games are of no relevance now, the actual quality of the console really is far lower than it would have been...
You see, when the console was first announced we were given REAL IN GAME demos showing 70 people watching a Tekken street brawl, with everyone cheering and being modelled perfectly. We were shown photorealistic graphics that were just first generation games. We were promised the world.
In reality, the console launch really showed Sony's true colours. Of course, the launch games weren't really representative of what the console could do- developers often rush games out for launch.
The fact is that we are still to see anything near what Sony promised us.
Oh, and don't go thinking that I'm just saying that the console didn't live up to the huge hype- the console simply didn't live up to the basics. The console design was rushed with Sony just trying to take attention from the Dreamcast's impending American launch (which went down a storm with $100 million being taken on day one!). Sony game developers PC dev kits at first to make the game demos on... the PC kits being absolutely nothing like the final dev kits!
Even simple things like Anti-aliasing took ages to "solve" (and even now, I prefer on hardware antialiasing DC style!).
But most of all, the game simply haven't performed. There are some "good" games, but no absolute must have brilliant titles. Developers seem to be "playing it safe" and just reusing old development ideas (maybe middleware is to blame???).
And still we wait for the big titles like MGS2 (which, from what I've heard is great, but not a classic).
I may even have to sell my PS2...
Sonic
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
"No comment" is
> usually negative...
That's a shame - as I've already said, I'm considering an
> Xbox, and Halo - despite my comments - *would* be a game I was interested in. I
> just don't believe it's that different from any other FPS.
So if you have any
> comments, please share them!
Halo was very playable, but, as you say, it is not much different from many other FPS shooters already out there. For me there was not the WOW factor that I got from seeing advance PS2 titles like Ridge Racer 5 and DOA2. Sure, Halo uses 5.1 sound but a majority of people have just the 2 speakers so this isnt much of a leap forward. My general feeling was that its an impressive game, but nothing my PC couldnt do when it is released on PC, and not an ideal launch title. If there was more strategy to it then it would be more unique but as it stands it is just another FPS title. A lot of other titles, like Gotham Racer, the WWF one, Buffy e.t.c do have very good graphics but until they've been played by real people - not reviewers - then I wont beleive they are all ace titles, any developer can comission pretty box art ! MGS 2 and GT3 were/are massively late, but at least most PS2 owners had something to look forward to. Microsoft have a large launch line up but not much is being said about what to expect in a years time. Whilst I still think Microsoft are some competition to Sony, I don't think either company will be the one which loses out in the battle of the next gen machines, plus Sony obviously have the next PS machine in development which will probably be released before any other companies new console and will undoubtedly beat them hands down in every department. Lastly, FFX is definitely going to ensure its a great summer, and MGS2 should help all PS2 owners weather the X Box/Gamecube frenzy :)
"No comment" is
> usually negative...
That's a shame - as I've already said, I'm considering an
> Xbox, and Halo - despite my comments - *would* be a game I was interested in. I
> just don't believe it's that different from any other FPS.
So if you have any
> comments, please share them!
Halo was very playable, but, as you say, it is not much different from many other FPS shooters already out there. For me there was not the WOW factor that I got from seeing advance PS2 titles like Ridge Racer 5 and DOA2. Sure, Halo uses 5.1 sound but a majority of people have just the 2 speakers so this isnt much of a leap forward. My general feeling was that its an impressive game, but nothing my PC couldnt do when it is released on PC, and not an ideal launch title. If there was more strategy to it then it would be more unique but as it stands it is just another FPS title. A lot of other titles, like Gotham Racer, the WWF one, Buffy e.t.c do have very good graphics but until they've been played by real people - not reviewers - then I wont beleive they are all ace titles, any developer can comission pretty box art ! MGS 2 and GT3 were/are massively late, but at least most PS2 owners had something to look forward to. Microsoft have a large launch line up but not much is being said about what to expect in a years time. Whilst I still think Microsoft are some competition to Sony, I don't think either company will be the one which loses out in the battle of the next gen machines, plus Sony obviously have the next PS machine in development which will probably be released before any other companies new console and will undoubtedly beat them hands down in every department. Lastly, FFX is definitely going to ensure its a great summer, and MGS2 should help all PS2 owners weather the X Box/Gamecube frenzy :)
Whatever happened to metallica dude is it me or are people getting banned alot recently
> WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
Not a 'problem', but a
> deliberate move. You can play DVD's
> in colour with perfectly good picture
> quality through the lead supplied with the
> PS2. If you want RGB through
> SCART, you can buy DVD RegionX. Gamecube doesn't
> play DVD's at all, Xbox
> needs an add-on - which in my view negates the cost of
> DVD RegionX - and
> which doesn't allow multi-region playback.
Yes it is a problem. someone who
> wants to copy DVDs can just get their machine modified. Disabling RGB only
> penalises normal decent buyers of the machine. Perfectly good picture quality ?
> Thats a joke ! I've seen £100 players do better - RGB is the best you can
> get - period. Region X does not give RGB quality, it disables the RGB signal so
> you dont have to unplug your scart cable, much the same as the Blaze scart cable
> does. Yes, X Box needs an add on, which is essentially a remote that costs the
> same as Sony's - which many need to fix bugs in the software, supposedly. PS2
> could not do multi region straight away so saying the X box cannot either is
> rather a mute point dont you think ?
>I'm not aware of any compatibility
> problems with TV's at all. Some
> discs do not play, but then many
> dedicated low-end players also have the same
> problem, and on PS2 many of
> these issues are solved with the updated
> driver.
Well from what I've
> heard, unless you have controls on your tv to centre the picture there are very
> few people with a centred picture. Some games do allow the picture to be moved
> admittedly, but very few. Hardly any low end players have the massive problems
> the PS2 DVD player has, over the last few months numerous people have posted on
> this forum to say discs don't work yet other people reply to say they can get
> them to work on theirs. The driver is supposed to sort the problems but you have
> to buy the remote to get it, and the low end players which have problems are
> generally sorted out for FREE, e.g. some of the Longman DVD players wouldnt play
> Gladiator, so the cmpany offered free upgrades to anyone who actually bothered
> to contact them.
>There
> are a handful of PSone games which won't
> work, and *most* of these are obscure
> Japanese titles. Metal Gear VR
> Missions is but one popular title that won't
> work. Sony have never
> claimed 100% compatibility, but to achieve well over
> 90% is fantastic.
> It's something which has never been attempted before (or
> since, for that
> matter) and Sony are to be commended for even bothering to try
> it at all.
> Of course, you could always keep your PSone to play PSone games -
> just
> like N64 owners will have to do, whether they like it or not.
I think you'll
> find many of us sold our PSONE because the PS2 was going to be able to play the
> games perfectly well. Yes, it was a good try, but so was Betamax :) The Gamecube
> games look like being so good that I doubt many N64 owners will be all that
> worried !
Still with the launch titles after more
> than a year? Wow.
> It really is time people looked beyond this. Even so, while
> they weren't
> outstanding, they certainly weren't all 'weak'.
Lastability is a
> moot
> point, as it's personal opinion. Some games last some people far longer
>
> than others. Also, blaming the PS2 or Sony is totally unfair, as the problem
>
> lies with the developers - the very same developers who will be making
> games for
> Gamecube and Xbox.
Yes, after a year. Because theres still
> very few lastable titles out there or ones that offer long term play. FF7 on
> PSONE was a game me and a friend played every day until we finished it. Same for
> Half Life, Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, SWAT 3, Sudden Strike and many other PC
> titles. Lastability is to a degree a personal opinion but if a games too easy
> thats a programming problem. Time Crisis 2 is brilliant graphically and the GCON
> is a great peripheral but even on hardest setting its too easy. Agent Under Fire
> is the same, no challenge or AI thats any good. Many developers have set aside
> teams to work on X Box/Gamecube or have seperate units so there are not the same
> people, even multi platform titles have seperate development teams because the
> console's respective architectute varies so much. Sony have overseen many titles
> under the SCEE label, Ridge Racer 5, Dropship, Dead Or Alive 2 e.t.c They do
> look convincingly arcadeish but also only the offer the quick fix arcade games
> give. Where is the depth ?
>You can blame that on the magazines and
> websites for blowing the cover
> on those, and also the staggered release
> dates. I believe that the game
> justifies the hype, but the hype has
> definitley spoiled it for many people - not
> because the game fails, but
> because most of the secrets have been
> revealed.
I'd blame the
> developer. They can keep secrets if they want to, but the ever failing release
> date has meant that they had to keep our interest for so long. This game was
> supposed to be a launch title ! The game can now never justify the hype because
> we've been promise the ultimate stealth-shooter-adventure game , and it will
> never be that to all people.
>This is just Human Nature - everyone, on
> all
> platforms, is the same - they get one thing, then ask... "What's
>
> next?" I believe this is driven by both good and bad games. Get a
> good
> game; think: "Wow! Great! If this what we have now, what else
> is to
> come?" Get a bad game: "Pah! Crap! What's next? It must
> be
> better." "Big" games are personal taste and opinion.
> Personally
> I couldn't give a monkey's about FFX - I had FFVII, didn't
> like it, won't buy
> another. My "big" games are: Dropship,
> Wipeout Fusion, The Getaway,
> Stuntman, Run Like Hell, Onimusha 2, Medal
> of Honour: Frontline, Maximo, Toca
> Race Driver, Oni ... and more. Oh, and
> to prove my point... you say Thunderhawk
> was rubbish, but I love it.
>
Yes it is personal taste, but any console needs BIG games that will generate
> interest and make people want to buy that console. Halo is going ot be a massive
> seeler for X Box, and will sell that console to many people. You liked
> Thunderhawk, fair enough, but the sales figures show that many didnt, with many
> retailers hardly bothering to stock it. Publishers and companies make money from
> their big games which helpls fund more adventurous ones like Run Like Hell. All
> the games you list do look good, but what will they play like. Ive lost count of
> the number of games I've waited for for ages only to see them be released or to
> buy them, and find out they're a pile of rot. Onimusha was great...for about
> three nights play. Extermination provided another weekends entertainment,
> Thunderhawk was okay but annoying controls, unsuitable missions and difficukty
> level - or lack of - made it a disappointing game compared to Thunderhawk 2 on
> the PSONE, that was far better yet is about 4 years older....
>Some
> developers are producing exclusives simply
> because they've been paid to
> do so, not because of any real system preference.
> It's a common
> misonception, at least on these boards, that because developers
> are going
> multi-platform they are deserting the PS2. That is not the
> case.
It
> is. Dead Or Alive 3 was a PS2 game...the Resident Evil series...GTA3+4...
> GT3...Buffy.... Developers go where the money is and Microsoft/Nintendo have the
> cash ready. It's no misconception, just basic math that one format does not pay
> if it isn't working out well. Why have the extra expense of more staff,
> hardware, office space if you dont need it ? Many developers like EIDOS have
> lost heavily on Thunderhawk, Project EDEN. Zone of Enders only sold becuase of
> the MGS2 demo - did anyone not complete this game within 1-2 tries ?
>
>Sony had many exclusives with PSone simply because there was no viable
>
> other platform from which developers could make money. Saturn/Dreamcast
> never
> really got off the ground, and the same can be said of the N64.
> Gamecube and
> Xbox look like they will sell well - so there is money to be
> made, hence
> developers are returning to multi-platform development. And
> that is the key
> word - 'returning'. The industry is not moving away from
> Sony, it is simply
> returning to a more balanced state.
Balanced ? No
> way, the market can only stand 2 dominant consoles, as SEGA found out, along
> with 3DO, ATARI and NEO GEO. They are not returning as you put it, they are
> fleeing. X BOX and GAMECUBE are sharing very few of their main titles with PS2
> owners are they ? What has Sony secured for PS2 owners as an exclusive,apart
> from a pile of Sega developed stuff, because after FFx this franchise is going
> multi platform. Consoles need exclusives to sell them, no one is in the console
> game purely to make people happy, its about money and profit. GT3 sold consoles-
> thats undisputable, MGS2 will also, but after that ? Sure games like Vampire
> Night and Rez are exclusive but they will not drastically attract new buyers at
> a time when X Box and Gamecube will be.
> GTA 3, and porbably 4 is
> going to
> the Gamecube
Unconfirmed as far as I know, but Rockstar
> recently said they
> don't see it as a platform for their games. Even so,
> "going to
> Gamecube" does not necessarily mean it *won't* be
> appearing on other
> platforms.
GTA3 is antoher title that sells th
> PS2. Why should anyone buy a PS2 to play GTA4 if they can play it on XBox ? Sony
> needs more extremely good games to sell consoles.
> the next Resident
> Evil is another Gamecube
Because it was
> paid for.
> Buffy - X Box
> and Gamecube
I thought Xbox and PC, but not
> sure.
> GT3 and GT4 to
> the PC.
I don't see how you can count this as
> a loss, when Sony have
> the rights and it is they who gave permission for the
> title to appear on
> PC. This, presumably, is because the next GT will be
> online-compatible,
> and being available to PC owners may have a significant
> knock-on effect
> and increase PS2 sales, online viability etc.
All these illustrate my point.
> Sony is not putting the cold hard cash into this. Sony should neverh ave let GT
> slip away to another platform as the high specs needed to play it mean its
> unlikely anyone will go out and buy a PS2 as well ! if it going to be online
> compatible then this only proves the point that Sony does not think there are
> enough PS2's out there to rely on. If the PS2 gaming community ends up mixed in
> with hardcore PC online players then many new online players just won't bother
> at all. The PS2 needs to establish its own gaming community online, not buy in
> one from elsewhere.
>I agree, I'm
> considering both - but I won't
> be losing my PS2, that's for sure. I don't see
> it has to be
> "either/or" - if you can get all three, there's nothing
>
> stopping you. If you can't, you get the one which suits you best - and that
>
> depends on the games you want. While Xbox and Gamecube will have many
> good
> games, I still think that PS2 will have the best overall selection.
>
X box looks like it already has the greater variety considering only the
> launch line up alone.
>
> HALO is amazing and like no shooter on
> PS2.
I would say that Halo is just
> like every other FPS, if prettier.
> And yes, I have read the non-biased Edge
> review, but I'm still
> unconvinced that it's significantly different to any other
> PC FPS. That
> said, it is coming to PC, and my PC packs more punch,
> so...
PC Games
> rely on Windows OS and drivers e.t.c to make them work... or rather not make
> them work. Most people want plug and play gaming, not install, configure, driver
> update, patch 1, play patch 2 gaming.
> These will look great, sound
> great and have
> massive
> advertising campaigns.
>And Sony
> won't?
Yeah, the Third Space campaign was briliant... only mostly PS2 owners
> actually knew it was for PS2
>Remember, Sony have a HUGE
>
> head-start in sales alone, and from what I've read, no-one seriously expects
>
> either Microsoft or Nintendo to overhaul them in a hurry. Xbox and
> Gamecube
> sold well in the run up to Xmas, but PS2 sales - already good -
> were up 82% in
> December!
Thats because last December you could hardly
> get them ! Sony has sold over 1 million here, but preliminary figures on CNN and
> Gamespot show that like for like sales compared to PS2 are significantly higher.
> Most people dont want all three, they want the one with the best games and
> features and graphics. I'd expect the sales trend to mirror the USA over here.
>
> Sure, people love to hate Microsoft, but nearly
>
>
> everyone buys their software and OS.
>True - but in the OS market there's
>
> little in the way of viable alternatives.
Ever thought this is why
> Sony reached a million ? :) Competition is always harder for any company. Sony
> beath off Sega and Nintendo last time, but Microsoft...Gates won't give in
> without a fight and cann afford to throw more money at it than Sony can.
>
>But look at the 'top' Xbox games - Halo (shooter),
> Wreckless
> (GTA3), Project Gotham (Racing) and so on.
Yes, Buffy (adventure/rpg), Ghost
> Recon (tactical/ strategy shooter), Dead Or Alive 3 (beat em up) X Box has the
> variety, Ghost Recon is ace on PC and looks even better on X Box. PS2 has
> nothing like it !
>The titles heading for
> Gamecube - Resident
> Evil, GTA3 (possibly), Rogue Leader (Starfighter).
The
>
> "great" titles are copies or conversions of titles already on PS2,
>
> which you say is unoriginal and needs great games.
Owners of either
> new console will have no previos compatible games. To them it wont just be
> antoher racer or beat em up. After one year I'm a little sick of racers and
> drivers and poor FPS games. These type of games are great for grabbing initial
> interest but they need to be followed up PDQ by more variety. Sony's launch
> games, whilst weak, did get everyones interest - RR5 and DOA2 in particular- but
> they needed building upon.
>But then, they're so far up the line that
>
> anything could happen. Derailment, points jam... wrong type of games on
> the
> line...
February (probably) for Gamecube and March for X box,
> thats not too far away when you consider the state ofthis country's rail system
> :) Wrong games ? American and Japanese sales have proved that isnt a problem.
> What if Sony are the proverbial Railtrack, ignoring the problem until their
> train crashes and the network collapses ?
HOW MUCH DOES IT COST?
> WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
Not a 'problem', but a
> deliberate move. You can play DVD's
> in colour with perfectly good picture
> quality through the lead supplied with the
> PS2. If you want RGB through
> SCART, you can buy DVD RegionX. Gamecube doesn't
> play DVD's at all, Xbox
> needs an add-on - which in my view negates the cost of
> DVD RegionX - and
> which doesn't allow multi-region playback.
Yes it is a problem. someone who
> wants to copy DVDs can just get their machine modified. Disabling RGB only
> penalises normal decent buyers of the machine. Perfectly good picture quality ?
> Thats a joke ! I've seen £100 players do better - RGB is the best you can
> get - period. Region X does not give RGB quality, it disables the RGB signal so
> you dont have to unplug your scart cable, much the same as the Blaze scart cable
> does. Yes, X Box needs an add on, which is essentially a remote that costs the
> same as Sony's - which many need to fix bugs in the software, supposedly. PS2
> could not do multi region straight away so saying the X box cannot either is
> rather a mute point dont you think ?
>I'm not aware of any compatibility
> problems with TV's at all. Some
> discs do not play, but then many
> dedicated low-end players also have the same
> problem, and on PS2 many of
> these issues are solved with the updated
> driver.
Well from what I've
> heard, unless you have controls on your tv to centre the picture there are very
> few people with a centred picture. Some games do allow the picture to be moved
> admittedly, but very few. Hardly any low end players have the massive problems
> the PS2 DVD player has, over the last few months numerous people have posted on
> this forum to say discs don't work yet other people reply to say they can get
> them to work on theirs. The driver is supposed to sort the problems but you have
> to buy the remote to get it, and the low end players which have problems are
> generally sorted out for FREE, e.g. some of the Longman DVD players wouldnt play
> Gladiator, so the cmpany offered free upgrades to anyone who actually bothered
> to contact them.
>There
> are a handful of PSone games which won't
> work, and *most* of these are obscure
> Japanese titles. Metal Gear VR
> Missions is but one popular title that won't
> work. Sony have never
> claimed 100% compatibility, but to achieve well over
> 90% is fantastic.
> It's something which has never been attempted before (or
> since, for that
> matter) and Sony are to be commended for even bothering to try
> it at all.
> Of course, you could always keep your PSone to play PSone games -
> just
> like N64 owners will have to do, whether they like it or not.
I think you'll
> find many of us sold our PSONE because the PS2 was going to be able to play the
> games perfectly well. Yes, it was a good try, but so was Betamax :) The Gamecube
> games look like being so good that I doubt many N64 owners will be all that
> worried !
Still with the launch titles after more
> than a year? Wow.
> It really is time people looked beyond this. Even so, while
> they weren't
> outstanding, they certainly weren't all 'weak'.
Lastability is a
> moot
> point, as it's personal opinion. Some games last some people far longer
>
> than others. Also, blaming the PS2 or Sony is totally unfair, as the problem
>
> lies with the developers - the very same developers who will be making
> games for
> Gamecube and Xbox.
Yes, after a year. Because theres still
> very few lastable titles out there or ones that offer long term play. FF7 on
> PSONE was a game me and a friend played every day until we finished it. Same for
> Half Life, Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, SWAT 3, Sudden Strike and many other PC
> titles. Lastability is to a degree a personal opinion but if a games too easy
> thats a programming problem. Time Crisis 2 is brilliant graphically and the GCON
> is a great peripheral but even on hardest setting its too easy. Agent Under Fire
> is the same, no challenge or AI thats any good. Many developers have set aside
> teams to work on X Box/Gamecube or have seperate units so there are not the same
> people, even multi platform titles have seperate development teams because the
> console's respective architectute varies so much. Sony have overseen many titles
> under the SCEE label, Ridge Racer 5, Dropship, Dead Or Alive 2 e.t.c They do
> look convincingly arcadeish but also only the offer the quick fix arcade games
> give. Where is the depth ?
>You can blame that on the magazines and
> websites for blowing the cover
> on those, and also the staggered release
> dates. I believe that the game
> justifies the hype, but the hype has
> definitley spoiled it for many people - not
> because the game fails, but
> because most of the secrets have been
> revealed.
I'd blame the
> developer. They can keep secrets if they want to, but the ever failing release
> date has meant that they had to keep our interest for so long. This game was
> supposed to be a launch title ! The game can now never justify the hype because
> we've been promise the ultimate stealth-shooter-adventure game , and it will
> never be that to all people.
>This is just Human Nature - everyone, on
> all
> platforms, is the same - they get one thing, then ask... "What's
>
> next?" I believe this is driven by both good and bad games. Get a
> good
> game; think: "Wow! Great! If this what we have now, what else
> is to
> come?" Get a bad game: "Pah! Crap! What's next? It must
> be
> better." "Big" games are personal taste and opinion.
> Personally
> I couldn't give a monkey's about FFX - I had FFVII, didn't
> like it, won't buy
> another. My "big" games are: Dropship,
> Wipeout Fusion, The Getaway,
> Stuntman, Run Like Hell, Onimusha 2, Medal
> of Honour: Frontline, Maximo, Toca
> Race Driver, Oni ... and more. Oh, and
> to prove my point... you say Thunderhawk
> was rubbish, but I love it.
>
Yes it is personal taste, but any console needs BIG games that will generate
> interest and make people want to buy that console. Halo is going ot be a massive
> seeler for X Box, and will sell that console to many people. You liked
> Thunderhawk, fair enough, but the sales figures show that many didnt, with many
> retailers hardly bothering to stock it. Publishers and companies make money from
> their big games which helpls fund more adventurous ones like Run Like Hell. All
> the games you list do look good, but what will they play like. Ive lost count of
> the number of games I've waited for for ages only to see them be released or to
> buy them, and find out they're a pile of rot. Onimusha was great...for about
> three nights play. Extermination provided another weekends entertainment,
> Thunderhawk was okay but annoying controls, unsuitable missions and difficukty
> level - or lack of - made it a disappointing game compared to Thunderhawk 2 on
> the PSONE, that was far better yet is about 4 years older....
>Some
> developers are producing exclusives simply
> because they've been paid to
> do so, not because of any real system preference.
> It's a common
> misonception, at least on these boards, that because developers
> are going
> multi-platform they are deserting the PS2. That is not the
> case.
It
> is. Dead Or Alive 3 was a PS2 game...the Resident Evil series...GTA3+4...
> GT3...Buffy.... Developers go where the money is and Microsoft/Nintendo have the
> cash ready. It's no misconception, just basic math that one format does not pay
> if it isn't working out well. Why have the extra expense of more staff,
> hardware, office space if you dont need it ? Many developers like EIDOS have
> lost heavily on Thunderhawk, Project EDEN. Zone of Enders only sold becuase of
> the MGS2 demo - did anyone not complete this game within 1-2 tries ?
>
>Sony had many exclusives with PSone simply because there was no viable
>
> other platform from which developers could make money. Saturn/Dreamcast
> never
> really got off the ground, and the same can be said of the N64.
> Gamecube and
> Xbox look like they will sell well - so there is money to be
> made, hence
> developers are returning to multi-platform development. And
> that is the key
> word - 'returning'. The industry is not moving away from
> Sony, it is simply
> returning to a more balanced state.
Balanced ? No
> way, the market can only stand 2 dominant consoles, as SEGA found out, along
> with 3DO, ATARI and NEO GEO. They are not returning as you put it, they are
> fleeing. X BOX and GAMECUBE are sharing very few of their main titles with PS2
> owners are they ? What has Sony secured for PS2 owners as an exclusive,apart
> from a pile of Sega developed stuff, because after FFx this franchise is going
> multi platform. Consoles need exclusives to sell them, no one is in the console
> game purely to make people happy, its about money and profit. GT3 sold consoles-
> thats undisputable, MGS2 will also, but after that ? Sure games like Vampire
> Night and Rez are exclusive but they will not drastically attract new buyers at
> a time when X Box and Gamecube will be.
> GTA 3, and porbably 4 is
> going to
> the Gamecube
Unconfirmed as far as I know, but Rockstar
> recently said they
> don't see it as a platform for their games. Even so,
> "going to
> Gamecube" does not necessarily mean it *won't* be
> appearing on other
> platforms.
GTA3 is antoher title that sells th
> PS2. Why should anyone buy a PS2 to play GTA4 if they can play it on XBox ? Sony
> needs more extremely good games to sell consoles.
> the next Resident
> Evil is another Gamecube
Because it was
> paid for.
> Buffy - X Box
> and Gamecube
I thought Xbox and PC, but not
> sure.
> GT3 and GT4 to
> the PC.
I don't see how you can count this as
> a loss, when Sony have
> the rights and it is they who gave permission for the
> title to appear on
> PC. This, presumably, is because the next GT will be
> online-compatible,
> and being available to PC owners may have a significant
> knock-on effect
> and increase PS2 sales, online viability etc.
All these illustrate my point.
> Sony is not putting the cold hard cash into this. Sony should neverh ave let GT
> slip away to another platform as the high specs needed to play it mean its
> unlikely anyone will go out and buy a PS2 as well ! if it going to be online
> compatible then this only proves the point that Sony does not think there are
> enough PS2's out there to rely on. If the PS2 gaming community ends up mixed in
> with hardcore PC online players then many new online players just won't bother
> at all. The PS2 needs to establish its own gaming community online, not buy in
> one from elsewhere.
>I agree, I'm
> considering both - but I won't
> be losing my PS2, that's for sure. I don't see
> it has to be
> "either/or" - if you can get all three, there's nothing
>
> stopping you. If you can't, you get the one which suits you best - and that
>
> depends on the games you want. While Xbox and Gamecube will have many
> good
> games, I still think that PS2 will have the best overall selection.
>
X box looks like it already has the greater variety considering only the
> launch line up alone.
>
> HALO is amazing and like no shooter on
> PS2.
I would say that Halo is just
> like every other FPS, if prettier.
> And yes, I have read the non-biased Edge
> review, but I'm still
> unconvinced that it's significantly different to any other
> PC FPS. That
> said, it is coming to PC, and my PC packs more punch,
> so...
PC Games
> rely on Windows OS and drivers e.t.c to make them work... or rather not make
> them work. Most people want plug and play gaming, not install, configure, driver
> update, patch 1, play patch 2 gaming.
> These will look great, sound
> great and have
> massive
> advertising campaigns.
>And Sony
> won't?
Yeah, the Third Space campaign was briliant... only mostly PS2 owners
> actually knew it was for PS2
>Remember, Sony have a HUGE
>
> head-start in sales alone, and from what I've read, no-one seriously expects
>
> either Microsoft or Nintendo to overhaul them in a hurry. Xbox and
> Gamecube
> sold well in the run up to Xmas, but PS2 sales - already good -
> were up 82% in
> December!
Thats because last December you could hardly
> get them ! Sony has sold over 1 million here, but preliminary figures on CNN and
> Gamespot show that like for like sales compared to PS2 are significantly higher.
> Most people dont want all three, they want the one with the best games and
> features and graphics. I'd expect the sales trend to mirror the USA over here.
>
> Sure, people love to hate Microsoft, but nearly
>
>
> everyone buys their software and OS.
>True - but in the OS market there's
>
> little in the way of viable alternatives.
Ever thought this is why
> Sony reached a million ? :) Competition is always harder for any company. Sony
> beath off Sega and Nintendo last time, but Microsoft...Gates won't give in
> without a fight and cann afford to throw more money at it than Sony can.
>
>But look at the 'top' Xbox games - Halo (shooter),
> Wreckless
> (GTA3), Project Gotham (Racing) and so on.
Yes, Buffy (adventure/rpg), Ghost
> Recon (tactical/ strategy shooter), Dead Or Alive 3 (beat em up) X Box has the
> variety, Ghost Recon is ace on PC and looks even better on X Box. PS2 has
> nothing like it !
>The titles heading for
> Gamecube - Resident
> Evil, GTA3 (possibly), Rogue Leader (Starfighter).
The
>
> "great" titles are copies or conversions of titles already on PS2,
>
> which you say is unoriginal and needs great games.
Owners of either
> new console will have no previos compatible games. To them it wont just be
> antoher racer or beat em up. After one year I'm a little sick of racers and
> drivers and poor FPS games. These type of games are great for grabbing initial
> interest but they need to be followed up PDQ by more variety. Sony's launch
> games, whilst weak, did get everyones interest - RR5 and DOA2 in particular- but
> they needed building upon.
>But then, they're so far up the line that
>
> anything could happen. Derailment, points jam... wrong type of games on
> the
> line...
February (probably) for Gamecube and March for X box,
> thats not too far away when you consider the state ofthis country's rail system
> :) Wrong games ? American and Japanese sales have proved that isnt a problem.
> What if Sony are the proverbial Railtrack, ignoring the problem until their
> train crashes and the network collapses ?
HOW MUCH DOES IT COST?
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
> Why the change of heart...I actually saw and played Halo this week....
> Hopefully my absence of any further comments will say far more than I could
> type...
"No comment" is usually negative...
That's a shame - as I've already said, I'm considering an Xbox, and Halo - despite my comments - *would* be a game I was interested in. I just don't believe it's that different from any other FPS.
So if you have any comments, please share them!
> Why the change of heart...I actually saw and played Halo this week....
> Hopefully my absence of any further comments will say far more than I could
> type...
"No comment" is usually negative...
That's a shame - as I've already said, I'm considering an Xbox, and Halo - despite my comments - *would* be a game I was interested in. I just don't believe it's that different from any other FPS.
So if you have any comments, please share them!
Apologies to Sony for my (temporary) disbelief.... I blame it on exam stress :P
Why the change of heart...I actually saw and played Halo this week.... Hopefully my absence of any further comments will say far more than I could type... Then I bought an ARV2 and some region 1 dvds, Dropship, Dynasty warriors 2 ( great at £13, honestly !) I'll never doubt my little black box again.
Guess consumer therapy works :) If only my bank balance was larger :(
Why the change of heart...I actually saw and played Halo this week.... Hopefully my absence of any further comments will say far more than I could type... Then I bought an ARV2 and some region 1 dvds, Dropship, Dynasty warriors 2 ( great at £13, honestly !) I'll never doubt my little black box again.
Guess consumer therapy works :) If only my bank balance was larger :(
Don't you just hate it when someone condenses the entire point of a major post into a few lines? :-)
Thanks Meka!
Thanks Meka!
I can't think of many developers that have said "We won't develop for the Playstation 2 anymore." Except for those that have been bought.
Developers are porting games to other systems for 2 reasons:
1) To make more profit.
2) To help give other consoles a greater market share.
Developers don't want one single dominant platform, more competition in the hardware market will lead to better deals for developers.
The PS2 has a solid future for a while yet, as there are so many units sitting under (or besides) television sets the world over, and any developer that ignores the PS2 is loosing out on many potential sales.
Developers are porting games to other systems for 2 reasons:
1) To make more profit.
2) To help give other consoles a greater market share.
Developers don't want one single dominant platform, more competition in the hardware market will lead to better deals for developers.
The PS2 has a solid future for a while yet, as there are so many units sitting under (or besides) television sets the world over, and any developer that ignores the PS2 is loosing out on many potential sales.
Page: