The "Xbox Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
If all people are going to do is pray for ports of PS2 games, the XBox is going to have a sorry life playing 2nd fiddle.
MGS2 is out on the PS2, so if you wanna play it, buy a damn PS2 if you haven't already got one. It's only £200 for god's sake. That way you can play MGS2 now, rather than wait for months, or forever for it to come out on XBox. MGS2 looks and sounds good enough already on the PS2 - what more could you want? Shadows done in hardware as opposed to software don't get my juices flowing somehow.
Take SSX Tricky. Out already for months on PS2, and out in what, June for XBox? On XBox the controls are flawed cos' the game is designed for the PS2 pad, and the graphics aren't much better, with a lot of slowdown.
There are a lot of people on here wishing for ports of PS2 games, and all that is doing is boosting SONYs confidence as they realise that they really do have the games that others want. Get a bloody PS2 if you want to play PS2 games.
A lot of games that are destined for both PS2 and XBox are favouring the PS2 in terms of release date. Pro Race Driver comes to mind here, coming to PS2 at least 6 months earlier than XBox. I don't care how good the XBox version looks, if I can get it on PS2 6 months earlier then I will do so. It's not going to look rubbish on PS2 is it? Sod the XBox (cos' mine bust anyway!).
I need to make a decision about whether or not to get another XBox soon, and at this rate, I'll probably just stick to my PS2 and wait for the PS3 to strike. The XBox isn't that big a leap anyway - certainly not the leap it was from PS1 to PS2.
Beg all you like for PS2 games, but at the end of the day, all this will do is kill the XBox.
MGS2 is out on the PS2, so if you wanna play it, buy a damn PS2 if you haven't already got one. It's only £200 for god's sake. That way you can play MGS2 now, rather than wait for months, or forever for it to come out on XBox. MGS2 looks and sounds good enough already on the PS2 - what more could you want? Shadows done in hardware as opposed to software don't get my juices flowing somehow.
Take SSX Tricky. Out already for months on PS2, and out in what, June for XBox? On XBox the controls are flawed cos' the game is designed for the PS2 pad, and the graphics aren't much better, with a lot of slowdown.
There are a lot of people on here wishing for ports of PS2 games, and all that is doing is boosting SONYs confidence as they realise that they really do have the games that others want. Get a bloody PS2 if you want to play PS2 games.
A lot of games that are destined for both PS2 and XBox are favouring the PS2 in terms of release date. Pro Race Driver comes to mind here, coming to PS2 at least 6 months earlier than XBox. I don't care how good the XBox version looks, if I can get it on PS2 6 months earlier then I will do so. It's not going to look rubbish on PS2 is it? Sod the XBox (cos' mine bust anyway!).
I need to make a decision about whether or not to get another XBox soon, and at this rate, I'll probably just stick to my PS2 and wait for the PS3 to strike. The XBox isn't that big a leap anyway - certainly not the leap it was from PS1 to PS2.
Beg all you like for PS2 games, but at the end of the day, all this will do is kill the XBox.
Page:
Your Honour wrote:
> As I said before, with the size of game media today there is no excuse
> for putting "backwards" tracks in.
>
> New tracks or just release the game later, in my view. Putting in
> reverse modes shows a lack of imagination and commitment by the
> developer
Its not really the size of the medium its how long each track takes. GT2 a car took a day or 2 to make, meaning 500+ cars could be in the game. GT3 a car took 2 weeks to make so only 170 could be done. Tracks are the same, the more detail the console can do the longer a game takes, or the more people are needed to work on the game.
> As I said before, with the size of game media today there is no excuse
> for putting "backwards" tracks in.
>
> New tracks or just release the game later, in my view. Putting in
> reverse modes shows a lack of imagination and commitment by the
> developer
Its not really the size of the medium its how long each track takes. GT2 a car took a day or 2 to make, meaning 500+ cars could be in the game. GT3 a car took 2 weeks to make so only 170 could be done. Tracks are the same, the more detail the console can do the longer a game takes, or the more people are needed to work on the game.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> It is a bit of a con. They have four cities modelled (don't know how
> accurate, but still, it's irrelevant to this point) and each track is
> just a combination of the roads, with many of the same roads making up
> several tracks.
>
> And some of the tracks are so short they can be considered simply as
> 'fillers' to make up the numbers.
Ok, fair.
TO be completely accurate they took three areas each, from four cities, and made the tracks up from that.
The fact is that they put the effort into making new tracks instead of just taking tracks from a 3 year old game, tarting the graphics up and sticking the reverse of the tracks in as "bonuses".
As I said before, with the size of game media today there is no excuse for putting "backwards" tracks in.
New tracks or just release the game later, in my view. Putting in reverse modes shows a lack of imagination and commitment by the developer:
"Oooh, we need some more tracks for the game."
"Well, I'm all out of ideas, sorry."
"That's ok, we'll just stick some tracks in backwards, no one will notice."
> It is a bit of a con. They have four cities modelled (don't know how
> accurate, but still, it's irrelevant to this point) and each track is
> just a combination of the roads, with many of the same roads making up
> several tracks.
>
> And some of the tracks are so short they can be considered simply as
> 'fillers' to make up the numbers.
Ok, fair.
TO be completely accurate they took three areas each, from four cities, and made the tracks up from that.
The fact is that they put the effort into making new tracks instead of just taking tracks from a 3 year old game, tarting the graphics up and sticking the reverse of the tracks in as "bonuses".
As I said before, with the size of game media today there is no excuse for putting "backwards" tracks in.
New tracks or just release the game later, in my view. Putting in reverse modes shows a lack of imagination and commitment by the developer:
"Oooh, we need some more tracks for the game."
"Well, I'm all out of ideas, sorry."
"That's ok, we'll just stick some tracks in backwards, no one will notice."
beanz wrote:
> yeah some of the tracks may jut be different by one or two turns
But thats enough to make the tracks different. Dont forget some games like Ridge Racer are just a big island with 10 different circuits that have bits from each other.
> yeah some of the tracks may jut be different by one or two turns
But thats enough to make the tracks different. Dont forget some games like Ridge Racer are just a big island with 10 different circuits that have bits from each other.
yeah some of the tracks may jut be different by one or two turns
Your Honour wrote:
> Unlike PGR which is fun, and has over 200, yes 200 tracks.
Yes, it does. But... (didn't you just know that was coming?)
It is a bit of a con. They have four cities modelled (don't know how accurate, but still, it's irrelevant to this point) and each track is just a combination of the roads, with many of the same roads making up several tracks.
And some of the tracks are so short they can be considered simply as 'fillers' to make up the numbers.
> Unlike PGR which is fun, and has over 200, yes 200 tracks.
Yes, it does. But... (didn't you just know that was coming?)
It is a bit of a con. They have four cities modelled (don't know how accurate, but still, it's irrelevant to this point) and each track is just a combination of the roads, with many of the same roads making up several tracks.
And some of the tracks are so short they can be considered simply as 'fillers' to make up the numbers.
yeah i find pgr funner to play...
gt3 was good until i got to the professional league where it would just take to long for each race.
gt3 was good until i got to the professional league where it would just take to long for each race.
And while we seem to be on a GT3 v PGR tip, here's something I posted in Chat that everyone seemed to ignore:
GT3 is too boring.
Also, it has a stupidly small number of tracks which have been taken from GT2. And what's with all this "Oooh! You get to race them BACKWARDS!" crap?
They did that on the Amiga because there was no room on a floppy disk for too many tracks.
Now we have huge DVD's to put our games on, just unlocking the same track backwards is unexcusable on the part of the developer and shows that they are too lazy to construct some proper tracks.
Unlike PGR which is fun, and has over 200, yes 200 tracks.
:-D
GT3 is too boring.
Also, it has a stupidly small number of tracks which have been taken from GT2. And what's with all this "Oooh! You get to race them BACKWARDS!" crap?
They did that on the Amiga because there was no room on a floppy disk for too many tracks.
Now we have huge DVD's to put our games on, just unlocking the same track backwards is unexcusable on the part of the developer and shows that they are too lazy to construct some proper tracks.
Unlike PGR which is fun, and has over 200, yes 200 tracks.
:-D
To be honest, I couldn't care which looks better out of GT3 and PGR.
PGR plays SO much better, in my view. It's just so much more fun, and that's the main thing.
PGR plays SO much better, in my view. It's just so much more fun, and that's the main thing.
only real pop up i have noticed in gt3 is in the mirror when looking back (i use it quite a lot to see where teh competitors are)..
haven't noticed any in pgr yet though
haven't noticed any in pgr yet though
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> Does it actually change in PGR? I've noticed the differences,
> obviously, but it seemed to me to change only on the differing routes
> around the cities. For example one Tokyo circuit always seems to
> appear as dusk, while another circuit using part of the same roads,
> was brighter. I haven't yet noticed different conditions on the same
> tracks, to be honest.
Yes I think it does, especially as in time attack you can actually select these options. The thing with PGR is that with 204 circuits in the game most of the kudos challenges, quick races, aracde races the circuits rarely repeat twice. Each time you race a track its different, well that was the case with MSR on the DC.
> Does it actually change in PGR? I've noticed the differences,
> obviously, but it seemed to me to change only on the differing routes
> around the cities. For example one Tokyo circuit always seems to
> appear as dusk, while another circuit using part of the same roads,
> was brighter. I haven't yet noticed different conditions on the same
> tracks, to be honest.
Yes I think it does, especially as in time attack you can actually select these options. The thing with PGR is that with 204 circuits in the game most of the kudos challenges, quick races, aracde races the circuits rarely repeat twice. Each time you race a track its different, well that was the case with MSR on the DC.
Page: