The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Ok, I thought we could all amalgamate into a nice healthy rant on the problems with Sony. Come on, gather round, don't be shy, it'll be fun. Because I need to get so much sh...stuff...off my chest. Deep breath, here goes...
1) They aren't a proper games company and don't know much more about games than I do about nuclear fission. They have no pedigree, and their games are all third-party.
2) The playstation was a post-pub-****-up accompaniment to a takeaway and vomit. Pub. Takeaway. Vomit. Playstation. So really, we shouldn't be comparing it to Nintendo's finest, but rather, Open University, the merits of Kylie Minogue over Britney Spears, Why Dave Is A Good Bloke, a tube of Pringles, and England's left-sided midfield problem.
3) The games were, with a few notable exceptions, utter drivel. Clearly, Sony had not figured on the soberly-challenged wasters noticing this fact. And what few good games there were, were glacially far apart, and for every half-decent game there was, there would be maybe 100 you wouldn't buy in a million years. Unless you had been impressed with them at Dave's House. I really hope no-one here is called Dave.
4) Where the hell did ps owners get off saying that it was superior to the n64? Are they sensory-deficient? Was the haemoglobin pausing before reaching the brain? I mean, seriously, I have produced better games than Parappa the Rapper out of my back passage. Or how about Bishi Bashi? No, I'm being serious, it's there. Or what about Crash Bandicoot? Utter garbage. Play a real game.
5) If I hear one more time about the ability to play cds or dvds, I will not be held accountable for my actions. Look, has it ever occured to you that cd players play cds too? Did people really need that function when cd was out for a decade beforehand? Plus, it played them sh**. And you couldn't watch telly on mute at the same time, or play a game. Didn't every man, woman and beast already have several cd players? Same with the dvd crap. Two years earlier, maybe it would have been a good idea. But it plays them damned awful too, with that green screen nonsense.
6) I really hated the way that the playstation came to be seen as the generic video games console. I am sure I am not the only one who was interrupted when playing the n64, asked if I was on the playstation. "Oh, he's on the playstation again" syndrome.
7) the awful controller. Especially when compared to the n64's revolutionary analogue stick. All they did was copy the SNES's pad. But by then, the d-pad was obselete. Too clumsy. But for games like crash bandicoot, who gives a? It didn't sit well.
8) OK, I know Nintendo gamers are also guilty of buying into FIFA games, but it was far more common in playstation ranks. No-one seemed to actually get how bad they were, but man they sold well.
9) Mary Kate and Ashley: Crush Course. Goofy's Fun House. Rugrats in Paris. Pajama Sam. Bishi Bashi. Lada Rally. Ok, so the last one's made up. The rest aren't.
10) The t***ers that bought it.
1) They aren't a proper games company and don't know much more about games than I do about nuclear fission. They have no pedigree, and their games are all third-party.
2) The playstation was a post-pub-****-up accompaniment to a takeaway and vomit. Pub. Takeaway. Vomit. Playstation. So really, we shouldn't be comparing it to Nintendo's finest, but rather, Open University, the merits of Kylie Minogue over Britney Spears, Why Dave Is A Good Bloke, a tube of Pringles, and England's left-sided midfield problem.
3) The games were, with a few notable exceptions, utter drivel. Clearly, Sony had not figured on the soberly-challenged wasters noticing this fact. And what few good games there were, were glacially far apart, and for every half-decent game there was, there would be maybe 100 you wouldn't buy in a million years. Unless you had been impressed with them at Dave's House. I really hope no-one here is called Dave.
4) Where the hell did ps owners get off saying that it was superior to the n64? Are they sensory-deficient? Was the haemoglobin pausing before reaching the brain? I mean, seriously, I have produced better games than Parappa the Rapper out of my back passage. Or how about Bishi Bashi? No, I'm being serious, it's there. Or what about Crash Bandicoot? Utter garbage. Play a real game.
5) If I hear one more time about the ability to play cds or dvds, I will not be held accountable for my actions. Look, has it ever occured to you that cd players play cds too? Did people really need that function when cd was out for a decade beforehand? Plus, it played them sh**. And you couldn't watch telly on mute at the same time, or play a game. Didn't every man, woman and beast already have several cd players? Same with the dvd crap. Two years earlier, maybe it would have been a good idea. But it plays them damned awful too, with that green screen nonsense.
6) I really hated the way that the playstation came to be seen as the generic video games console. I am sure I am not the only one who was interrupted when playing the n64, asked if I was on the playstation. "Oh, he's on the playstation again" syndrome.
7) the awful controller. Especially when compared to the n64's revolutionary analogue stick. All they did was copy the SNES's pad. But by then, the d-pad was obselete. Too clumsy. But for games like crash bandicoot, who gives a? It didn't sit well.
8) OK, I know Nintendo gamers are also guilty of buying into FIFA games, but it was far more common in playstation ranks. No-one seemed to actually get how bad they were, but man they sold well.
9) Mary Kate and Ashley: Crush Course. Goofy's Fun House. Rugrats in Paris. Pajama Sam. Bishi Bashi. Lada Rally. Ok, so the last one's made up. The rest aren't.
10) The t***ers that bought it.
Page:
BenKaye, you are a complete moron. Forums don't need idiots like you in them.
Your Olympic Hero wrote:
Why? Because the games were a lot
> better for the ps. Im not a sony fan who is against nintendo. I have more snes
> games than N64 games and the snes games are all better.
The standard of Nintendo's good games compared to Sony's good games was so much higher, compare supposedly the best game on the PS1 Metal Gear Solid to the best game on the N64 Perfect Dark. The quality of Perfect Dark is miles apart from Metal Gear.
Admittedly there where a hell of a lot of games on the PS1, and that's where the N64 failed it didn't have enough releases, but when it came to AAA titles the N64 wins hands down.
Why? Because the games were a lot
> better for the ps. Im not a sony fan who is against nintendo. I have more snes
> games than N64 games and the snes games are all better.
The standard of Nintendo's good games compared to Sony's good games was so much higher, compare supposedly the best game on the PS1 Metal Gear Solid to the best game on the N64 Perfect Dark. The quality of Perfect Dark is miles apart from Metal Gear.
Admittedly there where a hell of a lot of games on the PS1, and that's where the N64 failed it didn't have enough releases, but when it came to AAA titles the N64 wins hands down.
Sibs wrote:
> Pro Evo, you made a rare venture out of the PSX forum! Still, it's a PSX related
> topic, but hey...
anyhow, that was an amusing topic... completely biased
> (and I am a Ninty) but very amusing...
lol
Well the post was amusing, but still very biased and in places full of flaws.
Had to do my bit for Sony. :D
> Pro Evo, you made a rare venture out of the PSX forum! Still, it's a PSX related
> topic, but hey...
anyhow, that was an amusing topic... completely biased
> (and I am a Ninty) but very amusing...
lol
Well the post was amusing, but still very biased and in places full of flaws.
Had to do my bit for Sony. :D
Hmmm, good to see interest in this thread. I should point out that my initial post was designed to provoke polarised opinion. I really don't mind the ps2, or its dvd feature, hmmm, too much. So this is about the ps1 principally, and sony the company. Obviously, I am a long-term Nintendo fan, they do rock and every serious gamesplayer knows it too. You see, I have no problem with categorising the ps1 as a console for the casual player, for the person who just wants a quick blast every now and again, in the same way that you might put a particular dvd on every now and again. In this respect, it was an inexpensive and pragmatic console. However, what really winds me up is so-called video games fans claiming that, blow-for-blow, the ps1 was better than the n64. And yes, there were some great games like the original metal gear, gran turismo, final fantasy and a couple of others. However, these were rarer than the n64's. To return to pro evo's response (which I am very grateful for, it's nice to see proper arguments), I will reply:
1) They do have to start somewhere of course, but sega and nintendo weren't new to video games before embarking on a console. In addition, the sony corporation has fingers in many pies, whereas the other two major console developers concentrated on a single market. So sony delegated. In addition, I always felt that the motto of sega/ninty could have been 'for gamers, by gamers', but I felt that the ps1 was very much the starbucks of video games- not the real deal, but pretending to be.
3) You claim there are 50+ 'good and very good' games for the ps1. For a start, 'good and very good' is not exactly a committed response. Secondly, if those games were made available to nintendo customers, I doubt more than a handful would be enthused over to the same degree. And forget 'good and very good', you look at nintendo and sega's back catalogue, not just of games but of video game breakthroughs, and you come to realise that sony's work in this area is not inspiring, it is in fact very derivative. They wanted a piece for themselves, and by clever marketing, they got it. It does not mean they deserve our respect.
4) I make no bones about the fact that MG, FF, and GT were great games, go on, add resident evil too, but not before you play castelvania on the snes. GTA was very inventive, and iss were fantastic games, but not exclusively for the ps1. Indeed, if you want a case in point, compare the two versions of iss on the n64 and the ps1. I don't need to tell you which was superior. And yes, actually, you do need to go on, because I think beyond those very few games, there was little else worthy of merit. Ask a nintendo fan to 'reel' off a list of the truly outstanding nintendo games, not just good to very good, and you will have a proper list, not three and a series. Oh, and crash bandicoot is not a very good game, nor will any sony platformer ever be. They take about as long to complete as it takes Jim Royle to break wind.
5) Done to death already.
7) I thought it was a poor controller, yes it is a personal thing, but it is interesting to note that both sony and microsoft have produced poor controllers for their first console in my opinion. What is not on is sony not modifying it somewhat for the ps2. It is not ergonomic, causes wrist pain and is uncomfortable, and makes far too reliance on the d-pad, which is less suitable for proper 3D adventure games and the like.
8) Yes but the sony fans lapped them up, each and every six months. It was the way that they made so much of all the stepovers and such, which easily impress some, but do not a proper footy game make.
10) I am sorry to have said what I said now, I know a great many good people that bought the ps1, obviously you are not a t***** and it was a mistake, but I disliked the disproportionately-high popularity of the ps1, when it was a far from great console.
The ball's in your court.
1) They do have to start somewhere of course, but sega and nintendo weren't new to video games before embarking on a console. In addition, the sony corporation has fingers in many pies, whereas the other two major console developers concentrated on a single market. So sony delegated. In addition, I always felt that the motto of sega/ninty could have been 'for gamers, by gamers', but I felt that the ps1 was very much the starbucks of video games- not the real deal, but pretending to be.
3) You claim there are 50+ 'good and very good' games for the ps1. For a start, 'good and very good' is not exactly a committed response. Secondly, if those games were made available to nintendo customers, I doubt more than a handful would be enthused over to the same degree. And forget 'good and very good', you look at nintendo and sega's back catalogue, not just of games but of video game breakthroughs, and you come to realise that sony's work in this area is not inspiring, it is in fact very derivative. They wanted a piece for themselves, and by clever marketing, they got it. It does not mean they deserve our respect.
4) I make no bones about the fact that MG, FF, and GT were great games, go on, add resident evil too, but not before you play castelvania on the snes. GTA was very inventive, and iss were fantastic games, but not exclusively for the ps1. Indeed, if you want a case in point, compare the two versions of iss on the n64 and the ps1. I don't need to tell you which was superior. And yes, actually, you do need to go on, because I think beyond those very few games, there was little else worthy of merit. Ask a nintendo fan to 'reel' off a list of the truly outstanding nintendo games, not just good to very good, and you will have a proper list, not three and a series. Oh, and crash bandicoot is not a very good game, nor will any sony platformer ever be. They take about as long to complete as it takes Jim Royle to break wind.
5) Done to death already.
7) I thought it was a poor controller, yes it is a personal thing, but it is interesting to note that both sony and microsoft have produced poor controllers for their first console in my opinion. What is not on is sony not modifying it somewhat for the ps2. It is not ergonomic, causes wrist pain and is uncomfortable, and makes far too reliance on the d-pad, which is less suitable for proper 3D adventure games and the like.
8) Yes but the sony fans lapped them up, each and every six months. It was the way that they made so much of all the stepovers and such, which easily impress some, but do not a proper footy game make.
10) I am sorry to have said what I said now, I know a great many good people that bought the ps1, obviously you are not a t***** and it was a mistake, but I disliked the disproportionately-high popularity of the ps1, when it was a far from great console.
The ball's in your court.
Pro Evo, you made a rare venture out of the PSX forum! Still, it's a PSX related topic, but hey...
anyhow, that was an amusing topic... completely biased (and I am a Ninty) but very amusing...
anyhow, that was an amusing topic... completely biased (and I am a Ninty) but very amusing...
BenKaye wrote:
1) They
> aren't a proper games company and don't know much more about games than I do
> about nuclear fission. They have no pedigree, and their games are all
> third-party.
They had no pedigree when they first came into the market no, but then, if you werent in the market how are you going to get that? By coming in, they did, and got there pedigree by coming a very succesfull console company. Yeah, most of the games were third party, but they still made a few and some that were very good.
3) The games were, with a few
> notable exceptions, utter drivel. Clearly, Sony had not figured on the
> soberly-challenged wasters noticing this fact. And what few good games there
> were, were glacially far apart, and for every half-decent game there was, there
> would be maybe 100 you wouldn't buy in a million years.
There were alot of very poor games out there yes, but thats the same story for most consoles isnt it. But the fact remains that there were still lots of very good games out there for you to buy, i have a collection of PS1 games that goes into the 60's and i have to say that at least 50 of them i class to be good and very good. There were more than enough very good games out on the PS1, and it was the gamers responsability to find out which ones to stay clear of and to buy with the use of the net, mags and so on, it wasnt hard to find a very good game.
4) Where the hell did ps owners get off saying that it was superior to
> the n64? Are they sensory-deficient? Was the haemoglobin pausing before reaching
> the brain? I mean, seriously, I have produced better games than Parappa the
> Rapper out of my back passage. Or how about Bishi Bashi? No, I'm being serious,
> it's there. Or what about Crash Bandicoot? Utter garbage. Play a real game.
>
All down to your opinion mate, clearly the mass majority of the PS1 owners were very happy as it sold millions of units, and sales usually mean that the people were happy right? I notice you picked out 2 games there, Par rapper and Bishi whatever. They were not really the PS1's finest were they by any means, but the likes of Crash, GT, MGS, FF, GTA, ISS, Resident Evil...shall i go on? These were all good games that you can never call 'utter garbage'. Your point '4' is down to your opinion, and so being, from what i see a ninty fan, biased.
5) If I hear one more time about the ability to play cds or dvds, I will not
> be held accountable for my actions. Look, has it ever occured to you that cd
> players play cds too? Did people really need that function when cd was out for a
> decade beforehand? Plus, it played them sh**. And you couldn't watch telly on
> mute at the same time, or play a game. Didn't every man, woman and beast already
> have several cd players? Same with the dvd crap. Two years earlier, maybe it
> would have been a good idea. But it plays them damned awful too, with that green
> screen nonsense.
The consoles are for playing games, agreed, but there is nothing wrong with having the ability of having it play CD's and DVD's is there, its hardly a crime, and for me and many more it was a welcome thing to see that the PS2 had DVD. I hadnt got a DVD and so to be getting a new console with a DVD i was delighted. And it doesnt play them badly, there is nothing at all wrong with the screen and i cant ever tell the real difference between an DVD player and the PS2, and the green screen was down to the scart supplied and therefore easy to resolve.
7) the awful controller.
> Especially when compared to the n64's revolutionary analogue stick. All they did
> was copy the SNES's pad. But by then, the d-pad was obselete. Too clumsy. But
> for games like crash bandicoot, who gives a? It didn't sit well.
Again, down to opinion, it may not be one of the best out there but it more than does the job, its not totally as bad as every other non sony fan reckons, and its hardly a reason to hate Sony is it.
8) OK, I
> know Nintendo gamers are also guilty of buying into FIFA games, but it was far
> more common in playstation ranks. No-one seemed to actually get how bad they
> were, but man they sold well.
Nothing to do with Sony. EA were the people behind the game and there the ones that would release the same game year after year. It sold because of the seasonal updates on both of the consoles and thats about it. The intelligent people knew that the better game was to be had with the ISS series and this is why the Fifa series has slowly started to sell less.
10) The t***ers that bought it.
I suppose your refering to Ninties buying the PS1, well i was one, i had the Snes and Nes and bought the PS1 as i saw it as the best console at that time, and i have no regrets about buying that or my PS2. The fact is, this post is all down to your opinion in a way you are biased to Nintendo, there were no real facts to say that Sony are the worser party or anything.
Im done.
1) They
> aren't a proper games company and don't know much more about games than I do
> about nuclear fission. They have no pedigree, and their games are all
> third-party.
They had no pedigree when they first came into the market no, but then, if you werent in the market how are you going to get that? By coming in, they did, and got there pedigree by coming a very succesfull console company. Yeah, most of the games were third party, but they still made a few and some that were very good.
3) The games were, with a few
> notable exceptions, utter drivel. Clearly, Sony had not figured on the
> soberly-challenged wasters noticing this fact. And what few good games there
> were, were glacially far apart, and for every half-decent game there was, there
> would be maybe 100 you wouldn't buy in a million years.
There were alot of very poor games out there yes, but thats the same story for most consoles isnt it. But the fact remains that there were still lots of very good games out there for you to buy, i have a collection of PS1 games that goes into the 60's and i have to say that at least 50 of them i class to be good and very good. There were more than enough very good games out on the PS1, and it was the gamers responsability to find out which ones to stay clear of and to buy with the use of the net, mags and so on, it wasnt hard to find a very good game.
4) Where the hell did ps owners get off saying that it was superior to
> the n64? Are they sensory-deficient? Was the haemoglobin pausing before reaching
> the brain? I mean, seriously, I have produced better games than Parappa the
> Rapper out of my back passage. Or how about Bishi Bashi? No, I'm being serious,
> it's there. Or what about Crash Bandicoot? Utter garbage. Play a real game.
>
All down to your opinion mate, clearly the mass majority of the PS1 owners were very happy as it sold millions of units, and sales usually mean that the people were happy right? I notice you picked out 2 games there, Par rapper and Bishi whatever. They were not really the PS1's finest were they by any means, but the likes of Crash, GT, MGS, FF, GTA, ISS, Resident Evil...shall i go on? These were all good games that you can never call 'utter garbage'. Your point '4' is down to your opinion, and so being, from what i see a ninty fan, biased.
5) If I hear one more time about the ability to play cds or dvds, I will not
> be held accountable for my actions. Look, has it ever occured to you that cd
> players play cds too? Did people really need that function when cd was out for a
> decade beforehand? Plus, it played them sh**. And you couldn't watch telly on
> mute at the same time, or play a game. Didn't every man, woman and beast already
> have several cd players? Same with the dvd crap. Two years earlier, maybe it
> would have been a good idea. But it plays them damned awful too, with that green
> screen nonsense.
The consoles are for playing games, agreed, but there is nothing wrong with having the ability of having it play CD's and DVD's is there, its hardly a crime, and for me and many more it was a welcome thing to see that the PS2 had DVD. I hadnt got a DVD and so to be getting a new console with a DVD i was delighted. And it doesnt play them badly, there is nothing at all wrong with the screen and i cant ever tell the real difference between an DVD player and the PS2, and the green screen was down to the scart supplied and therefore easy to resolve.
7) the awful controller.
> Especially when compared to the n64's revolutionary analogue stick. All they did
> was copy the SNES's pad. But by then, the d-pad was obselete. Too clumsy. But
> for games like crash bandicoot, who gives a? It didn't sit well.
Again, down to opinion, it may not be one of the best out there but it more than does the job, its not totally as bad as every other non sony fan reckons, and its hardly a reason to hate Sony is it.
8) OK, I
> know Nintendo gamers are also guilty of buying into FIFA games, but it was far
> more common in playstation ranks. No-one seemed to actually get how bad they
> were, but man they sold well.
Nothing to do with Sony. EA were the people behind the game and there the ones that would release the same game year after year. It sold because of the seasonal updates on both of the consoles and thats about it. The intelligent people knew that the better game was to be had with the ISS series and this is why the Fifa series has slowly started to sell less.
10) The t***ers that bought it.
I suppose your refering to Ninties buying the PS1, well i was one, i had the Snes and Nes and bought the PS1 as i saw it as the best console at that time, and i have no regrets about buying that or my PS2. The fact is, this post is all down to your opinion in a way you are biased to Nintendo, there were no real facts to say that Sony are the worser party or anything.
Im done.
I have a N64 and a Playstation. I think the ps had a lot better games.
I got the consoles within two months of each other and now I have....
N64 games - 4
PS games - 40 (ok 38 but close enough)
Why? Because the games were a lot better for the ps. Im not a sony fan who is against nintendo. I have more snes games than N64 games and the snes games are all better.
N64 was a mistake but it looks like Nintendo may have redeemed themselves with the Gamecube.
I got the consoles within two months of each other and now I have....
N64 games - 4
PS games - 40 (ok 38 but close enough)
Why? Because the games were a lot better for the ps. Im not a sony fan who is against nintendo. I have more snes games than N64 games and the snes games are all better.
N64 was a mistake but it looks like Nintendo may have redeemed themselves with the Gamecube.
Phi11ip did you read the posts on this topic before you? Your main argument (about PlayStation's more games and longer development time) was quashed ages ago. If you can't remember:
When you say PlayStation has more games, that's a fact, but it doesn't make the Console better. The only reason that developers went to the PS more was because they could manufacture a game that was economic to produce (PS games cost under a pound to 'burn') and still get away with profit. This is why the market was flooded with totally rubbish games. You say the PS had more games. To put it an even more accurate way, 'The PS had far more terrible dross games than the N64. The majority of N64 games were brilliant because at over £2 a cartridge, developers could not afford to make a bad game that would not sell well because their losses would be too great'.
The same reasoning goes behind why PS1 games are still being made. I didn't even realise they were still in production until you said so. Shows how groundbreakingly brilliant they are then, with literally NO hype or advertising.
You can diss the N64 on the Sony forum if you feel you will get any respect for it.
-M-
When you say PlayStation has more games, that's a fact, but it doesn't make the Console better. The only reason that developers went to the PS more was because they could manufacture a game that was economic to produce (PS games cost under a pound to 'burn') and still get away with profit. This is why the market was flooded with totally rubbish games. You say the PS had more games. To put it an even more accurate way, 'The PS had far more terrible dross games than the N64. The majority of N64 games were brilliant because at over £2 a cartridge, developers could not afford to make a bad game that would not sell well because their losses would be too great'.
The same reasoning goes behind why PS1 games are still being made. I didn't even realise they were still in production until you said so. Shows how groundbreakingly brilliant they are then, with literally NO hype or advertising.
You can diss the N64 on the Sony forum if you feel you will get any respect for it.
-M-
I might as well quote the whole message from before and not write anything! Thats a good idea!
sorry about the last post, god damed computer
Page: