The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
ive wanted on of these for ages but cant really afford it, bu if this was released outside of japan then it would be the number 1 console no questions, its the most beautiful peice on hardware ever! and it plays dvds of all regions, and uk/japan/usa games,
and just look at it its, perfeciton
http://gear.ign.com/articles/356/356908p1.html
and just look at it its, perfeciton
http://gear.ign.com/articles/356/356908p1.html
Page:
Update2.01 wrote:
> Ok, so you can put up with the pc crashing, restarting and getting the
> Scandisk check, installing patches, not being able to install the
> latest "big" games unless you spend more money, etc, but
> what about people who can't afford to do it? Also explain away that
> lot to some of my younger relations - it just doesn't work.
*shrug*
When my PC resets, or needs maintenance, it's because I've been screwing with the settings, not because of the games.
> Even "installing" perfect software is more of a hassle using
> a PC. Some games require a section of the game to be stored on the
> hard disc, but also need the remainder to accesses direct from the
> cd/dvd-rom. Others (even with "full" install) put everything
> on your hard disc, but still require the cd/dvd-rom to be in the
> drive. Some games use up lots of hard disc space, and if you had as
> many PC games as I have PS2 games, you would need a very large hard
> disc drive or more than one to hold it all. Then if you want to run
> QuarkXpress, PhotoShop, Word, and a big modern OS like WinXP, you will
> use up tens of gigabytes. Much easier just to put the disc into a
> console and play the game - true plug & play.
Now, some of these comments are just silly. Of course you'll need a CD ROM in the drive to play the game, otherwise you could install it, give it to your mate to install, and pass it around slowly over however many thousands of people you liked. This is folly.
And as for the rest of your comments, you can buy a 40GB harddrive for less than the price of a PS2 new release, so space isn't an issue.
In short, PC gaming is neither for the rich or stupid, but instead for people who know what they're doing. I have a console as well, but I play my PC more. Why? Because all the most challenging games are made for PC. Sure, I'll acknowledge that consoles get good games - some damn good ones - that don't come out on PC, but that's why I own a GameCube as well.
I miss nothing, I don't spend a fortune keeping my PC up to date, and I don't spend half my evenings defragging hard drives. In fact, I spend NO TIME doing that.
If people like Top Score don't know how to look after SERIOUS hardware, then they should stick to easy to use consoles, and just have to miss out on some of the finest games available.
Not bothered personally. I'm neither rich nor stupid. I have a PC, it plays pretty much everything, certainly everything I want to play on it, and provides a challenging gaming experience that my GC does not. My GC offers a pick up an play aspect of gaming for quick hits of mindless gameplay, while my PC will keep me for (sometimes literally) days at a time, playing, thinking, solving, scheming etc.
I have nothing against consoles, because I use them myself. I I didn't own a console, I wouldn't comment on consoles. All I ask is the same simple decency from people who think they know everything about PCs, but at the end of the day haven't got a clue what they're talking about
> Ok, so you can put up with the pc crashing, restarting and getting the
> Scandisk check, installing patches, not being able to install the
> latest "big" games unless you spend more money, etc, but
> what about people who can't afford to do it? Also explain away that
> lot to some of my younger relations - it just doesn't work.
*shrug*
When my PC resets, or needs maintenance, it's because I've been screwing with the settings, not because of the games.
> Even "installing" perfect software is more of a hassle using
> a PC. Some games require a section of the game to be stored on the
> hard disc, but also need the remainder to accesses direct from the
> cd/dvd-rom. Others (even with "full" install) put everything
> on your hard disc, but still require the cd/dvd-rom to be in the
> drive. Some games use up lots of hard disc space, and if you had as
> many PC games as I have PS2 games, you would need a very large hard
> disc drive or more than one to hold it all. Then if you want to run
> QuarkXpress, PhotoShop, Word, and a big modern OS like WinXP, you will
> use up tens of gigabytes. Much easier just to put the disc into a
> console and play the game - true plug & play.
Now, some of these comments are just silly. Of course you'll need a CD ROM in the drive to play the game, otherwise you could install it, give it to your mate to install, and pass it around slowly over however many thousands of people you liked. This is folly.
And as for the rest of your comments, you can buy a 40GB harddrive for less than the price of a PS2 new release, so space isn't an issue.
In short, PC gaming is neither for the rich or stupid, but instead for people who know what they're doing. I have a console as well, but I play my PC more. Why? Because all the most challenging games are made for PC. Sure, I'll acknowledge that consoles get good games - some damn good ones - that don't come out on PC, but that's why I own a GameCube as well.
I miss nothing, I don't spend a fortune keeping my PC up to date, and I don't spend half my evenings defragging hard drives. In fact, I spend NO TIME doing that.
If people like Top Score don't know how to look after SERIOUS hardware, then they should stick to easy to use consoles, and just have to miss out on some of the finest games available.
Not bothered personally. I'm neither rich nor stupid. I have a PC, it plays pretty much everything, certainly everything I want to play on it, and provides a challenging gaming experience that my GC does not. My GC offers a pick up an play aspect of gaming for quick hits of mindless gameplay, while my PC will keep me for (sometimes literally) days at a time, playing, thinking, solving, scheming etc.
I have nothing against consoles, because I use them myself. I I didn't own a console, I wouldn't comment on consoles. All I ask is the same simple decency from people who think they know everything about PCs, but at the end of the day haven't got a clue what they're talking about
ahh, so at least we are accepting the fact now that PC for games is not as easy. There is a sacrifice there. Well that's a part U turn anyway.
Ok, so you can put up with the pc crashing, restarting and getting the Scandisk check, installing patches, not being able to install the latest "big" games unless you spend more money, etc, but what about people who can't afford to do it? Also explain away that lot to some of my younger relations - it just doesn't work.
Even "installing" perfect software is more of a hassle using a PC. Some games require a section of the game to be stored on the hard disc, but also need the remainder to accesses direct from the cd/dvd-rom. Others (even with "full" install) put everything on your hard disc, but still require the cd/dvd-rom to be in the drive. Some games use up lots of hard disc space, and if you had as many PC games as I have PS2 games, you would need a very large hard disc drive or more than one to hold it all. Then if you want to run QuarkXpress, PhotoShop, Word, and a big modern OS like WinXP, you will use up tens of gigabytes. Much easier just to put the disc into a console and play the game - true plug & play.
Ok, so you can put up with the pc crashing, restarting and getting the Scandisk check, installing patches, not being able to install the latest "big" games unless you spend more money, etc, but what about people who can't afford to do it? Also explain away that lot to some of my younger relations - it just doesn't work.
Even "installing" perfect software is more of a hassle using a PC. Some games require a section of the game to be stored on the hard disc, but also need the remainder to accesses direct from the cd/dvd-rom. Others (even with "full" install) put everything on your hard disc, but still require the cd/dvd-rom to be in the drive. Some games use up lots of hard disc space, and if you had as many PC games as I have PS2 games, you would need a very large hard disc drive or more than one to hold it all. Then if you want to run QuarkXpress, PhotoShop, Word, and a big modern OS like WinXP, you will use up tens of gigabytes. Much easier just to put the disc into a console and play the game - true plug & play.
Update2.01 wrote:
> System patch. With a console, you dont have to get them since the
> games are right in the first place! Sloppy PC code and no testing
> before PC software is launched is a good enough reason itself to play
> games only on console.
Typical of a console fan-boy. Patches do fix bugs, but no, not every game on the PC is developed sloppily by developers to warrant these patches. They not only fix bugs, they also tweak thing like the game engine, add a couple more games modes, add a few more objects ect...
Besides you don't have to install if you don't want to. They are only really necessary if you want to play online game, and online gaming overrated anyway.
I'll tell you now, nothing I've played on a console can satisfy as much as the games I've played on my PC. Sure I have to put with allot more problems to get the best out of the games, but it's a worthy sacrifice.
> System patch. With a console, you dont have to get them since the
> games are right in the first place! Sloppy PC code and no testing
> before PC software is launched is a good enough reason itself to play
> games only on console.
Typical of a console fan-boy. Patches do fix bugs, but no, not every game on the PC is developed sloppily by developers to warrant these patches. They not only fix bugs, they also tweak thing like the game engine, add a couple more games modes, add a few more objects ect...
Besides you don't have to install if you don't want to. They are only really necessary if you want to play online game, and online gaming overrated anyway.
I'll tell you now, nothing I've played on a console can satisfy as much as the games I've played on my PC. Sure I have to put with allot more problems to get the best out of the games, but it's a worthy sacrifice.
No. If you only play games on consoles you miss far too much.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> All depends what software you intend to use. If you're going for the
> Macromedia pack (DW, Fireworks etc) they eat system resources like
> tinned hotdogs. There are quite a few apps that really take the
> michael.
Glad you admitted that one, IB.
As I use a PC for work related stuff and not for games, I dont need to spend as much on it/keep it upto date.
System patch. With a console, you dont have to get them since the games are right in the first place! Sloppy PC code and no testing before PC software is launched is a good enough reason itself to play games only on console.
> All depends what software you intend to use. If you're going for the
> Macromedia pack (DW, Fireworks etc) they eat system resources like
> tinned hotdogs. There are quite a few apps that really take the
> michael.
Glad you admitted that one, IB.
As I use a PC for work related stuff and not for games, I dont need to spend as much on it/keep it upto date.
System patch. With a console, you dont have to get them since the games are right in the first place! Sloppy PC code and no testing before PC software is launched is a good enough reason itself to play games only on console.
All depends what software you intend to use. If you're going for the Macromedia pack (DW, Fireworks etc) they eat system resources like tinned hotdogs. There are quite a few apps that really take the michael.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Sure, PC's cost a little more than the average loaf of bread, but I
> guarantee that very few people buy PCs solely to play on games.
True, but games are the only widely used software that require anything like a top-end PC to run well. If you didn't intend to play games on your PC, you could almost certainly get away with a far lower spec (and hence far cheaper) model.
Having said that though, it's not too hard to put together a PC capable of playing *most* newish games for a little over the cost of a console.
Then there are other factors to consider... game mods and patches for PC games are widely available on the net. Not so with console games.
> Sure, PC's cost a little more than the average loaf of bread, but I
> guarantee that very few people buy PCs solely to play on games.
True, but games are the only widely used software that require anything like a top-end PC to run well. If you didn't intend to play games on your PC, you could almost certainly get away with a far lower spec (and hence far cheaper) model.
Having said that though, it's not too hard to put together a PC capable of playing *most* newish games for a little over the cost of a console.
Then there are other factors to consider... game mods and patches for PC games are widely available on the net. Not so with console games.
My point is this; Not only can PCs play games, they do so very well, and have peripherals and input devices that give an edge over anything available for the current crop of consoles. With this in mind, why should people not play games on them?
If they don't, they're only missing out.
Sure, PC's cost a little more than the average loaf of bread, but I guarantee that very few people buy PCs solely to play on games.
If they don't, they're only missing out.
Sure, PC's cost a little more than the average loaf of bread, but I guarantee that very few people buy PCs solely to play on games.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> put simply, if humans only ever used things for their intended use, we
> wouldn't have even invented the wheel yet.
Yea, but humans do invent things for,
a) more than one task
b) for a specific job
An aircraft wouldn't be much good for parking in my local Sainsburys car park, and my hatchback car would not be very good at crossing the Atlantic.
On the other hand, I can type and draw on my pc. 2 tasks - one computer.
Having said that, the pc can only do different things, thanks to various software which effectively sets up the pc to do different tasks. You could say the PS2 has a general design, but the built in software prevents this being used as a general design (ie, a pc). However it does allow more than one specific function, ie DVD movies and games (plus a few others), but does not allow a full blown selection of things to be run, like drawing.
So we have single purpose devices, and devices which can do a few preset selection of tasks (PS2, Sky DigiBox, etc), and we have totally general purpose equipment such as the pc we can do almost anything provided there is software that allows it.
> put simply, if humans only ever used things for their intended use, we
> wouldn't have even invented the wheel yet.
Yea, but humans do invent things for,
a) more than one task
b) for a specific job
An aircraft wouldn't be much good for parking in my local Sainsburys car park, and my hatchback car would not be very good at crossing the Atlantic.
On the other hand, I can type and draw on my pc. 2 tasks - one computer.
Having said that, the pc can only do different things, thanks to various software which effectively sets up the pc to do different tasks. You could say the PS2 has a general design, but the built in software prevents this being used as a general design (ie, a pc). However it does allow more than one specific function, ie DVD movies and games (plus a few others), but does not allow a full blown selection of things to be run, like drawing.
So we have single purpose devices, and devices which can do a few preset selection of tasks (PS2, Sky DigiBox, etc), and we have totally general purpose equipment such as the pc we can do almost anything provided there is software that allows it.
put simply, if humans only ever used things for their intended use, we wouldn't have even invented the wheel yet.
Page: