The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Has anyone else noticed that GT3, metal gear 2 and final fantasy X are all crap?
well, maybe not crap but not exactly what I'd call good anyway. I just got a PS2 a couple of months ago, and I have to admit that the only PSone sequel I've actually been impressed by is GTA3 (which is probably the best game EVER). The problems I've found with the other PSone sequels are as follows:
GT3: boring - 2 hours to finish a race! -what the hells that about?
SLOW - try playing burnout for 15 mins then going back to playing GT3 - you'll see what I mean.
NO CAR DAMAGE - theres nothing quite as satisfying as smashing up a shiny new car!
Metal gear 2 - IT'S NOT A GAME - its a movie that you occaisionally get to interact with
I haven't seen a game this linear since.......well, final fantasy 9 actually
Too easy - if you skip all the cut scenes you can complete it in a few hours
Final fantasy X - I've just finished playing a demo of it and I've got to say I'm not impressed
- It's as linear as ever and suffers from INTERACTIVE MOVIE SYNDROME
- sure it looks nice, but shouldn't there be a GAME in there some where?
- If they're going to make it into an Interactive movie shouldn't they at least use a decent plot? - they're all the same for god sake!
Having said that, the PS2 has come up with a very good crop of original games, such as SSX, Burnout, Agent under fire, Dropshop, Star wars starfighter, and the excellent Devil may cry. It's just a shame that none of the old PSone games have faired well in the conversion - sadly, they all seem to of traded gameplay for graphics. Oh well I've had my little rant, Igotta go and take out my anger on some innocent civillians in GTA3 now, see ya!
well, maybe not crap but not exactly what I'd call good anyway. I just got a PS2 a couple of months ago, and I have to admit that the only PSone sequel I've actually been impressed by is GTA3 (which is probably the best game EVER). The problems I've found with the other PSone sequels are as follows:
GT3: boring - 2 hours to finish a race! -what the hells that about?
SLOW - try playing burnout for 15 mins then going back to playing GT3 - you'll see what I mean.
NO CAR DAMAGE - theres nothing quite as satisfying as smashing up a shiny new car!
Metal gear 2 - IT'S NOT A GAME - its a movie that you occaisionally get to interact with
I haven't seen a game this linear since.......well, final fantasy 9 actually
Too easy - if you skip all the cut scenes you can complete it in a few hours
Final fantasy X - I've just finished playing a demo of it and I've got to say I'm not impressed
- It's as linear as ever and suffers from INTERACTIVE MOVIE SYNDROME
- sure it looks nice, but shouldn't there be a GAME in there some where?
- If they're going to make it into an Interactive movie shouldn't they at least use a decent plot? - they're all the same for god sake!
Having said that, the PS2 has come up with a very good crop of original games, such as SSX, Burnout, Agent under fire, Dropshop, Star wars starfighter, and the excellent Devil may cry. It's just a shame that none of the old PSone games have faired well in the conversion - sadly, they all seem to of traded gameplay for graphics. Oh well I've had my little rant, Igotta go and take out my anger on some innocent civillians in GTA3 now, see ya!
Page:
Does anyone else think this dude who posted this topic doesn't actually have a ps2 and isjust jealous of great games such as MGS2 and FFX and just dreams about the graphics.
i personally think you were either smoking ' ' when you posted this topic or you are just not a gamer !!!!
i personally think you were either smoking ' ' when you posted this topic or you are just not a gamer !!!!
Jesus christ! SOMEBODY out there must agree with me! especially the GT3 = SLOW & boring debate! Oh well here goes:
>nh wrote: You younguns just dont know how lucky you are with these new fangled video games.
I remember those days too - when gameplay came before graphics and the games were actually challenging!
>nh wrote: driving a car at the speed is nothing like the feeling you get in Burnout
I know the handling is nothing like real life, but the overall effect is.
- you get a certain buzz out of charging about at breakneck speeds in burnout, which is sadly lacking in GT3
- I know it's ARCADEY, and unrealistic. but surely the most important factor in a RACEING game is SPEED!
>wookie wrote: It's a simulation in that all cars perform in-game in a way that is as close as you can get to the real thing.
I admit GT3 does actually have SOME strong points, it looks nice, the cars handle reallistically, etc. BUT it's just not much FUN to play, and thats what I generally play a game for. GT3 isn't fun to drive - it fools you into thinking it is, by rewarding you when you win.
>wookie wrote: If you just buy the most powerful car straight off and bounce off the walls, then fine - don't expect to get much pleasure from the game... or any racer, for that matter.
call me zany but I expect a game to CHALLENGE me, not just allow me to hammer my way aroung the track.
>wookie wrote: GT3 isn't a quick-fix game. Probably not even a continuous challenge. Where it's great is that you can keep coming back to it over time.
Couldn't agree more, but honestly, when was the last time you played it?
>FATBUTCHER wrote: I can see why it doesn't feel like your doing 200mph when you play GT3 as the speedo displays speed in kmph.
oops, good point but it is still too slow to be reallistic
>ABSOLUT NEO wrote: I keep hearing rave reviews about GTA 3 and its on my wanted list as is a decent platformer and GT3.
sorry mate but everybody knows that the only type of platformer worth buying is an exceptionally good one, and sadly the only company in the world that makes those are nintendo. Just get GTA3 and start saving for a gamecube
>nh wrote: You younguns just dont know how lucky you are with these new fangled video games.
I remember those days too - when gameplay came before graphics and the games were actually challenging!
>nh wrote: driving a car at the speed is nothing like the feeling you get in Burnout
I know the handling is nothing like real life, but the overall effect is.
- you get a certain buzz out of charging about at breakneck speeds in burnout, which is sadly lacking in GT3
- I know it's ARCADEY, and unrealistic. but surely the most important factor in a RACEING game is SPEED!
>wookie wrote: It's a simulation in that all cars perform in-game in a way that is as close as you can get to the real thing.
I admit GT3 does actually have SOME strong points, it looks nice, the cars handle reallistically, etc. BUT it's just not much FUN to play, and thats what I generally play a game for. GT3 isn't fun to drive - it fools you into thinking it is, by rewarding you when you win.
>wookie wrote: If you just buy the most powerful car straight off and bounce off the walls, then fine - don't expect to get much pleasure from the game... or any racer, for that matter.
call me zany but I expect a game to CHALLENGE me, not just allow me to hammer my way aroung the track.
>wookie wrote: GT3 isn't a quick-fix game. Probably not even a continuous challenge. Where it's great is that you can keep coming back to it over time.
Couldn't agree more, but honestly, when was the last time you played it?
>FATBUTCHER wrote: I can see why it doesn't feel like your doing 200mph when you play GT3 as the speedo displays speed in kmph.
oops, good point but it is still too slow to be reallistic
>ABSOLUT NEO wrote: I keep hearing rave reviews about GTA 3 and its on my wanted list as is a decent platformer and GT3.
sorry mate but everybody knows that the only type of platformer worth buying is an exceptionally good one, and sadly the only company in the world that makes those are nintendo. Just get GTA3 and start saving for a gamecube
AbsoluT Neo wrote:
> I keep hearing rave reviews about GTA 3 and its on my
> wanted list as is a decent platformer
Try Jak & Daxter and/or Maximo.
> I keep hearing rave reviews about GTA 3 and its on my
> wanted list as is a decent platformer
Try Jak & Daxter and/or Maximo.
ok I cannot comment on FF X (aint played the demo) or GT3 (ain't got it yet) all I can tell you is don't always trust a demo. I think MGS 2 was thought of as "crap" to alot of people but when it actually came out a lot of people thought it was great (ok maybe not you) MGS 2 is playable movie I agree but thats something I like I dont mind the cut scenes, because I think it's something very different from many other games developed 2day which have mediocre story lines and the gameplay is nowhere as good. Theres no other game with the action, storey line and thrilling sound as there is in MGS 2, So I don't agree with your point in that aspect. I keep hearing rave reviews about GTA 3 and its on my wanted list as is a decent platformer and GT3.
smokey wrote:
> Surely a RACING SIMULATION should actually simulate
> SPEED - have you ever done 120mph in a car
Yes, twice - once on the way up to 140mph, and again on the way back down. If youget the right car in GT3 and tune it, it feels very much like 120mph+
> I'm sorry but GT3 is an RPG not a RACING SIMULATION
> - if you buy a good enough car (Escudo) you can win just
> by keeping your foot to the floor all the way round
And you probably would win in a real Escudo, as it has two engines and puts out silly horsepower. All of the stats and physics in GT3 are taken from the real cars, so the performance is *accurate*.
> In what way is that a SIMULATION. I know they're not
> allowed to put in car damage but shouldn't they of put in
> SOME sore of incentive not to just smash your way
> around the course
It's a simulation in that all cars perform in-game in a way that is as close as you can get to the real thing. The incentive is to perfect your racing line, race properly and trim your lap times. I rarely hit the walls, and still struggle to win some races. If you just buy the most powerful car straight off and bounce off the walls, then fine - don't expect to get much pleasure from the game... or any racer, for that matter.
> And are you honestly saying that you didn't get the
> tinyest bit bored doing an endurance race on the oval?
Yes, that can be boring - I did it in GT2 and haven't yet done it in GT3. But that's one race out of many. If you buy a racing game, what the hell do you expect, other than racing the same tracks over and over?!
GT3 isn't a quick-fix game. Probably not even a continuous challenge. Where it's great is that you can keep coming back to it over time. I still have both GT1 and GT2 - I won't sell them, because I'm not bored of them.
> Surely a RACING SIMULATION should actually simulate
> SPEED - have you ever done 120mph in a car
Yes, twice - once on the way up to 140mph, and again on the way back down. If youget the right car in GT3 and tune it, it feels very much like 120mph+
> I'm sorry but GT3 is an RPG not a RACING SIMULATION
> - if you buy a good enough car (Escudo) you can win just
> by keeping your foot to the floor all the way round
And you probably would win in a real Escudo, as it has two engines and puts out silly horsepower. All of the stats and physics in GT3 are taken from the real cars, so the performance is *accurate*.
> In what way is that a SIMULATION. I know they're not
> allowed to put in car damage but shouldn't they of put in
> SOME sore of incentive not to just smash your way
> around the course
It's a simulation in that all cars perform in-game in a way that is as close as you can get to the real thing. The incentive is to perfect your racing line, race properly and trim your lap times. I rarely hit the walls, and still struggle to win some races. If you just buy the most powerful car straight off and bounce off the walls, then fine - don't expect to get much pleasure from the game... or any racer, for that matter.
> And are you honestly saying that you didn't get the
> tinyest bit bored doing an endurance race on the oval?
Yes, that can be boring - I did it in GT2 and haven't yet done it in GT3. But that's one race out of many. If you buy a racing game, what the hell do you expect, other than racing the same tracks over and over?!
GT3 isn't a quick-fix game. Probably not even a continuous challenge. Where it's great is that you can keep coming back to it over time. I still have both GT1 and GT2 - I won't sell them, because I'm not bored of them.
smokey wrote:
> WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
GT3 is a racing
> simulation - cars cover distances in 'real time'.
> Burnout is an arcade
> racer with unrealistically fast speeds.
Surely a RACING SIMULATION should
> actually simulate SPEED - have you ever done 120mph in a car - It feels a lot
> more like burnout than GT3 I can tell you! next time you play GT3 look at the
> speedo and ask yourself does it actually feel like I'm going 200+ mph?
I can see why it doesn't feel like your doing 200mph when you play GT3 as the speedo displays speed in kmph.
> WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
GT3 is a racing
> simulation - cars cover distances in 'real time'.
> Burnout is an arcade
> racer with unrealistically fast speeds.
Surely a RACING SIMULATION should
> actually simulate SPEED - have you ever done 120mph in a car - It feels a lot
> more like burnout than GT3 I can tell you! next time you play GT3 look at the
> speedo and ask yourself does it actually feel like I'm going 200+ mph?
I can see why it doesn't feel like your doing 200mph when you play GT3 as the speedo displays speed in kmph.
You younguns just dont know how lucky you are with these new fangled video games. How can you complain about a game as good as GT3 when you look back twenty years and see that pitiful games we used to play on our speccies.
Yes I have driven round Brands Hatch and Snetterton at speed of 120+ and driving a car at the speed is nothing like the feeling you get in Burnout - It is also not like the feeling you get in GT3 but is actually much more akin to it.
Playing GT3 you feel that you are in total control of the car which is the same as driving in real life at speed. When you drive a real car it moves across the track, it doesnt flip around like in burnout.
I know that everybody is entitled to their own opinions but please try to actually put some sensible arguments in other than dont you get bored doing an endurance race on the oval - It says it's a two hour endurance - If you dont want to do it then dont, you wont get bored then.
As far as your comment about MGS2 are concerened - I agree with Wookiee - I have read reviews and read numerous discussions in these forums - I have chosen not to buy the game because of all the Cut scenes and the relativley short amount of gameplay but I know that if you skip the cut scenes you will miss out on alot of the plot so will never complete all the game, and, from the feedback since release it definately has replay value as all the quick finishers have been finding out about things they have missed (Dogtags being the obvoius one).
Yes I have driven round Brands Hatch and Snetterton at speed of 120+ and driving a car at the speed is nothing like the feeling you get in Burnout - It is also not like the feeling you get in GT3 but is actually much more akin to it.
Playing GT3 you feel that you are in total control of the car which is the same as driving in real life at speed. When you drive a real car it moves across the track, it doesnt flip around like in burnout.
I know that everybody is entitled to their own opinions but please try to actually put some sensible arguments in other than dont you get bored doing an endurance race on the oval - It says it's a two hour endurance - If you dont want to do it then dont, you wont get bored then.
As far as your comment about MGS2 are concerened - I agree with Wookiee - I have read reviews and read numerous discussions in these forums - I have chosen not to buy the game because of all the Cut scenes and the relativley short amount of gameplay but I know that if you skip the cut scenes you will miss out on alot of the plot so will never complete all the game, and, from the feedback since release it definately has replay value as all the quick finishers have been finding out about things they have missed (Dogtags being the obvoius one).
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
GT3 is a racing simulation - cars cover distances in 'real time'.
> Burnout is an arcade racer with unrealistically fast speeds.
Surely a RACING SIMULATION should actually simulate SPEED - have you ever done 120mph in a car - It feels a lot more like burnout than GT3 I can tell you! next time you play GT3 look at the speedo and ask yourself does it actually feel like I'm going 200+ mph?
I'm sorry but GT3 is an RPG not a RACING SIMULATION - if you buy a good enough car (Escudo) you can win just by keeping your foot to the floor all the way round the courses and just battering yourself off the sides of the track- In what way is that a SIMULATION. I know they're not allowed to put in car damage but shouldn't they of put in SOME sore of incentive not to just smash your way around the course (cash fines of reducing of car stats etc.)
And are you honestly saying that you didn't get the tinyest bit bored doing an endurance race on the oval? I got half way (and 5 laps ahead of my closest competition) and had to start doning hand-breakers just to eleviate the boredom!
GT3 is a racing simulation - cars cover distances in 'real time'.
> Burnout is an arcade racer with unrealistically fast speeds.
Surely a RACING SIMULATION should actually simulate SPEED - have you ever done 120mph in a car - It feels a lot more like burnout than GT3 I can tell you! next time you play GT3 look at the speedo and ask yourself does it actually feel like I'm going 200+ mph?
I'm sorry but GT3 is an RPG not a RACING SIMULATION - if you buy a good enough car (Escudo) you can win just by keeping your foot to the floor all the way round the courses and just battering yourself off the sides of the track- In what way is that a SIMULATION. I know they're not allowed to put in car damage but shouldn't they of put in SOME sore of incentive not to just smash your way around the course (cash fines of reducing of car stats etc.)
And are you honestly saying that you didn't get the tinyest bit bored doing an endurance race on the oval? I got half way (and 5 laps ahead of my closest competition) and had to start doning hand-breakers just to eleviate the boredom!
GT3 - Excellent racing game, and I don't know what you were doing to make a race last 2 hours.... I'm rubbish at driving games, and despite driving a car I don't have a clue about the upgrades, mostly. Yes I still find it enjoyable. Burnout was rubbish, yeah you get crashes but in the demo that action stops at every crash for a reply style movie. Thats really rubbish, and the graphics on Burnout aren't as good or realistic. (lack of) Damage doesn't really detract from a game, it means that most people will at least get round the track. Add to that the massive amount of cars, tracks, play modes e.t.c. and you've got one ace game.
MGS2 - Interactive movie ? I think not. Yeah there's movies but plenty of action in there too.
FFX - The demo is simply to give everyone an idea of the game. By definition an RPG needs a strong storyline to make you want to play, its just that theres a better quality of movie now. If Nintendo could have done it, the early Zelda's would have had them !
In short, these are 3 ace games.
MGS2 - Interactive movie ? I think not. Yeah there's movies but plenty of action in there too.
FFX - The demo is simply to give everyone an idea of the game. By definition an RPG needs a strong storyline to make you want to play, its just that theres a better quality of movie now. If Nintendo could have done it, the early Zelda's would have had them !
In short, these are 3 ace games.
smokey wrote:
GT3:
> boring - 2 hours to finish a race! -what the hells that about?
SLOW -
> try playing burnout for 15 mins then going back to playing GT3 - you'll see what
> I mean.
NO CAR DAMAGE - theres nothing quite
> as satisfying as smashing up a shiny new car!
2 hours to finish a race? true, but these are only a select few endurance races, hence the name 'endurance'. You could not call them that if it only took 5 minutes to complete could you. You say Burnout is faster, that also may be true but then Burnout is an Arcade game that is made to reproduce the speed side to gaming. However GT 3 is a racing sim and goes for a more realistic type of driving. As for the car damage, true again, i too wish it was in, bit this is down to the car manufacturers, not the developement team.
GT 3 is a good game thats got loads to do in it with so many cars ect. It your opinion however, cant argue with that.
Metal gear 2 - IT'S NOT A GAME
> - its a movie that you occaisionally get to interact with
> I haven't seen a game this linear since.......well, final fantasy 9 actually
> Too easy - if you skip all the cut scenes you can
> complete it in a few hours
Ok, you can call this an interactive movie but its still a damn good game. There are lots of initiative in it with loads of neat little features and lots of different types of gameplay within. Too easy? i imagine thats because you have it on easy mode, try having it on hard with no radar and you will soon see a difference. And it can take you ages to finish, to truly have everything in the game you have to collect all the dog tags and then get special items for the next time around.
Final fantasy X - I've just finished playing a
> demo of it and I've got to say I'm not impressed
-
> It's as linear as ever and suffers from INTERACTIVE MOVIE SYNDROME
> - sure it looks nice, but shouldn't there be a GAME in there some
> where?
- If they're going to make it into an
> Interactive movie shouldn't they at least use a
> decent plot? - they're all the same for god sake!
And finally, how can you judge this game yet? Its only a demo, the game could be a whole lot different for all you know, you can hardly criticise the plot when you dont even know what it is in a demo can you.
GT3:
> boring - 2 hours to finish a race! -what the hells that about?
SLOW -
> try playing burnout for 15 mins then going back to playing GT3 - you'll see what
> I mean.
NO CAR DAMAGE - theres nothing quite
> as satisfying as smashing up a shiny new car!
2 hours to finish a race? true, but these are only a select few endurance races, hence the name 'endurance'. You could not call them that if it only took 5 minutes to complete could you. You say Burnout is faster, that also may be true but then Burnout is an Arcade game that is made to reproduce the speed side to gaming. However GT 3 is a racing sim and goes for a more realistic type of driving. As for the car damage, true again, i too wish it was in, bit this is down to the car manufacturers, not the developement team.
GT 3 is a good game thats got loads to do in it with so many cars ect. It your opinion however, cant argue with that.
Metal gear 2 - IT'S NOT A GAME
> - its a movie that you occaisionally get to interact with
> I haven't seen a game this linear since.......well, final fantasy 9 actually
> Too easy - if you skip all the cut scenes you can
> complete it in a few hours
Ok, you can call this an interactive movie but its still a damn good game. There are lots of initiative in it with loads of neat little features and lots of different types of gameplay within. Too easy? i imagine thats because you have it on easy mode, try having it on hard with no radar and you will soon see a difference. And it can take you ages to finish, to truly have everything in the game you have to collect all the dog tags and then get special items for the next time around.
Final fantasy X - I've just finished playing a
> demo of it and I've got to say I'm not impressed
-
> It's as linear as ever and suffers from INTERACTIVE MOVIE SYNDROME
> - sure it looks nice, but shouldn't there be a GAME in there some
> where?
- If they're going to make it into an
> Interactive movie shouldn't they at least use a
> decent plot? - they're all the same for god sake!
And finally, how can you judge this game yet? Its only a demo, the game could be a whole lot different for all you know, you can hardly criticise the plot when you dont even know what it is in a demo can you.
Page: