The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
You think you're so smart with your nice new GameCubes. Happy with them are you? I know you are, you've told us enough times. Especially "Oooh, this controller is fantastic, it's much better than all the other controllers I've used".
Bollards.
Why can't you see it's exactly the same as the DualShock 2 but with less features? Let's run through this:
· D-pad - check
· Two analog sticks - check
· Four main buttons - check
· Shoulder buttons - check
· Rumble - nope
· Full analog on ALL buttons - nope
· 4 shoulder buttons - nope
· Analog sticks as sensitive as the DualShock 2 - nope
· Ability to drop for storeys and still work perfectly - nope
Excuse me if I'm wrong but surely if it's the SAME shape with the SAME layout but with less functions, that makes it worse? Oh no, sorry, I'm missing out the facts that it's purple and made by Nintendo, that automatically makes it far superior, I'm terribly sorry.
I dare any of you to prove to me that the GameCube controller is better than the DualShock 2 - and saying that "it's more comfortable" is a cop-out.
Bollards.
Why can't you see it's exactly the same as the DualShock 2 but with less features? Let's run through this:
· D-pad - check
· Two analog sticks - check
· Four main buttons - check
· Shoulder buttons - check
· Rumble - nope
· Full analog on ALL buttons - nope
· 4 shoulder buttons - nope
· Analog sticks as sensitive as the DualShock 2 - nope
· Ability to drop for storeys and still work perfectly - nope
Excuse me if I'm wrong but surely if it's the SAME shape with the SAME layout but with less functions, that makes it worse? Oh no, sorry, I'm missing out the facts that it's purple and made by Nintendo, that automatically makes it far superior, I'm terribly sorry.
I dare any of you to prove to me that the GameCube controller is better than the DualShock 2 - and saying that "it's more comfortable" is a cop-out.
Page:
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> Whitestripes wrote:
> They weren't analouge, they were digital. If you pushed them a
> little
> bit, the little guy on the screen ran the same speed as if you
> pushed
> it hard.
>
> Okay, as you're obviously stupid, I'll re-quote part of my earlier
> post:
>
> -----
>
> Also http://www.channel3games.com/platforms/5200.shtml from which I
> quote:
>
> "The 5200 did introduce several innovations that remain with us
> today. It was the first system to offer four controller ports, though
> it was also available in a (more common) two-port version that
> virtually assured a dearth of four-player games. It was also the first
> system to offer truly analog control"
>
> -----
>
> The joysticks were fully analogue. All that the movement speed means
> is that the coders for particular games used basic directional input
> code and didn't take advantage of the full range of motion. I had one
> of the consoles with similar analogue controls, in which the amount of
> stick movement varied the speed of movement on screen.
>
>
> And I didn't think they were consoles
>
> They were cartridge-based and played games. What would you call
> them?
>
>
> ..but anyway it never would have become as big if Nintendo hadn't
> joined
> and that would have probably led to no Sony or Microsoft involvment
> either.
>
> Before the videogame market crashed in 1984 (bet you didn't even know
> it had a crash), ColecoVision had sold six million units in three
> years, and if not for the crash, it would most likely have been the
> system of choice throughout the 80s.
>
> It was also the first home system to host Mario in Donkey Kong.
> http://www.classicgaming.com/museum/colecovision/
>
> You're right about the involvement of Sony and Microsoft. Sony only
> became involved at Nintendo's request for help - a partnership from
> which they withdrew, thinking that CD wasn't a viable gaming
> platform.
>
> Sony then turned the industry from niche market to megabucks industry,
> which obviously then attracted Microsoft.
>
> However, had the market not crashed in 1984, the story would have been
> different entirely, and it's likely that ColecoVision would be the
> dominant force. Even Nintendo may not have entered the market.
>
> Check your videogame history. There's no doubt that Nintendo have
> done a lot for the games industry, but they certainly don't deserve to
> be credited for things they didn't do.
I wasn't even alive in 1984, and I always envisioned an Atari as being like an Amiga...anyway, thank-you for correcting me and I promise not to post anymore stuff unless I know for certain it's true.
Now what was this about again? Oh the controllers, right, the thing is the console(s) you own is/are the one(s) your going to have played on the most, for obvious reasons. So your going to think that the controller for it is the most comfortable, because your more used to it. A bit like when you've had a pair of shoes for a long time and they've been worn and have been changed slightly to fit the shape of your foot, so you would find them more comfortable than a new pair (unless your old ones were just too small). So PS owners will be more comfortable using the dualshock, and GC owners would feel more comfortable using the GC pad. I still find the N64 pad to be the most comfortable, because it's what I've been using for the past 5 years, but in a month or two it will most likely be the GC pad as it's what I'll be using from now until...well a long time.
> Whitestripes wrote:
> They weren't analouge, they were digital. If you pushed them a
> little
> bit, the little guy on the screen ran the same speed as if you
> pushed
> it hard.
>
> Okay, as you're obviously stupid, I'll re-quote part of my earlier
> post:
>
> -----
>
> Also http://www.channel3games.com/platforms/5200.shtml from which I
> quote:
>
> "The 5200 did introduce several innovations that remain with us
> today. It was the first system to offer four controller ports, though
> it was also available in a (more common) two-port version that
> virtually assured a dearth of four-player games. It was also the first
> system to offer truly analog control"
>
> -----
>
> The joysticks were fully analogue. All that the movement speed means
> is that the coders for particular games used basic directional input
> code and didn't take advantage of the full range of motion. I had one
> of the consoles with similar analogue controls, in which the amount of
> stick movement varied the speed of movement on screen.
>
>
> And I didn't think they were consoles
>
> They were cartridge-based and played games. What would you call
> them?
>
>
> ..but anyway it never would have become as big if Nintendo hadn't
> joined
> and that would have probably led to no Sony or Microsoft involvment
> either.
>
> Before the videogame market crashed in 1984 (bet you didn't even know
> it had a crash), ColecoVision had sold six million units in three
> years, and if not for the crash, it would most likely have been the
> system of choice throughout the 80s.
>
> It was also the first home system to host Mario in Donkey Kong.
> http://www.classicgaming.com/museum/colecovision/
>
> You're right about the involvement of Sony and Microsoft. Sony only
> became involved at Nintendo's request for help - a partnership from
> which they withdrew, thinking that CD wasn't a viable gaming
> platform.
>
> Sony then turned the industry from niche market to megabucks industry,
> which obviously then attracted Microsoft.
>
> However, had the market not crashed in 1984, the story would have been
> different entirely, and it's likely that ColecoVision would be the
> dominant force. Even Nintendo may not have entered the market.
>
> Check your videogame history. There's no doubt that Nintendo have
> done a lot for the games industry, but they certainly don't deserve to
> be credited for things they didn't do.
I wasn't even alive in 1984, and I always envisioned an Atari as being like an Amiga...anyway, thank-you for correcting me and I promise not to post anymore stuff unless I know for certain it's true.
Now what was this about again? Oh the controllers, right, the thing is the console(s) you own is/are the one(s) your going to have played on the most, for obvious reasons. So your going to think that the controller for it is the most comfortable, because your more used to it. A bit like when you've had a pair of shoes for a long time and they've been worn and have been changed slightly to fit the shape of your foot, so you would find them more comfortable than a new pair (unless your old ones were just too small). So PS owners will be more comfortable using the dualshock, and GC owners would feel more comfortable using the GC pad. I still find the N64 pad to be the most comfortable, because it's what I've been using for the past 5 years, but in a month or two it will most likely be the GC pad as it's what I'll be using from now until...well a long time.
Turbonutter wrote:
> Yes, and we'd still be stuck with unoriginal remakes of old games in a
> happy happy cute pink land if it weren't for Sega, Sony and friends.
You're wrong. The PlayStation harboured tonnes more kiddy games than the N64. Crap like Rugrats, Teletubbies, Muppets, Toy Story, Anamaniacs, Spyro the Dragon, Crash Bandicoot, Tombi, Ape Escape, Rat Attack, and more. And all of those were crap (maybe not Spyro or Ape Escape). If you compare it to the kiddy games on the N64, you'll find a much smaller range. And the other difference is that the 'kiddy' games on the N64 were still brilliant to play. Be you kiddy or man.
And then the N64 still had great games like Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Resi 2, Ridge Racer 64, Turok, a load of great non-kiddy puzzlers plus a massive range of mediocre non-kiddy games. And all of these were off the top of my head. If I was to open an N64 mag and a PlayStation mag and compare the game directories, I'd find far more kiddy games for the Playstation.
In fact, you're only calling the N64 kiddy because that happens to be the target audience for NINTENDO's games. Not all the N64 games. The reason the PSone has more kiddy games, is because any spin-off title, any games like that all go to the PlayStation. The reason? Because it is so mainstream, and consequently much better for sales.
Almost the only consistent developers for the N64 who made kiddy games were Nintendo and Rare. Sure there were the one off titles like 'Rocket: Robot on Wheels' but that was it.
You can't make false claims without facts to back them up. If you fail in this, you'll merely be stating an opinion. An opinion which is so laughably false that it makes you look a complete idiot.
> Yes, and we'd still be stuck with unoriginal remakes of old games in a
> happy happy cute pink land if it weren't for Sega, Sony and friends.
You're wrong. The PlayStation harboured tonnes more kiddy games than the N64. Crap like Rugrats, Teletubbies, Muppets, Toy Story, Anamaniacs, Spyro the Dragon, Crash Bandicoot, Tombi, Ape Escape, Rat Attack, and more. And all of those were crap (maybe not Spyro or Ape Escape). If you compare it to the kiddy games on the N64, you'll find a much smaller range. And the other difference is that the 'kiddy' games on the N64 were still brilliant to play. Be you kiddy or man.
And then the N64 still had great games like Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Resi 2, Ridge Racer 64, Turok, a load of great non-kiddy puzzlers plus a massive range of mediocre non-kiddy games. And all of these were off the top of my head. If I was to open an N64 mag and a PlayStation mag and compare the game directories, I'd find far more kiddy games for the Playstation.
In fact, you're only calling the N64 kiddy because that happens to be the target audience for NINTENDO's games. Not all the N64 games. The reason the PSone has more kiddy games, is because any spin-off title, any games like that all go to the PlayStation. The reason? Because it is so mainstream, and consequently much better for sales.
Almost the only consistent developers for the N64 who made kiddy games were Nintendo and Rare. Sure there were the one off titles like 'Rocket: Robot on Wheels' but that was it.
You can't make false claims without facts to back them up. If you fail in this, you'll merely be stating an opinion. An opinion which is so laughably false that it makes you look a complete idiot.
Whitestripes wrote:
> They weren't analouge, they were digital. If you pushed them a little
> bit, the little guy on the screen ran the same speed as if you pushed
> it hard.
Okay, as you're obviously stupid, I'll re-quote part of my earlier post:
-----
Also http://www.channel3games.com/platforms/5200.shtml from which I quote:
"The 5200 did introduce several innovations that remain with us today. It was the first system to offer four controller ports, though it was also available in a (more common) two-port version that virtually assured a dearth of four-player games. It was also the first system to offer truly analog control"
-----
The joysticks were fully analogue. All that the movement speed means is that the coders for particular games used basic directional input code and didn't take advantage of the full range of motion. I had one of the consoles with similar analogue controls, in which the amount of stick movement varied the speed of movement on screen.
> And I didn't think they were consoles
They were cartridge-based and played games. What would you call them?
> ..but anyway it never would have become as big if Nintendo hadn't joined
> and that would have probably led to no Sony or Microsoft involvment
> either.
Before the videogame market crashed in 1984 (bet you didn't even know it had a crash), ColecoVision had sold six million units in three years, and if not for the crash, it would most likely have been the system of choice throughout the 80s.
It was also the first home system to host Mario in Donkey Kong. http://www.classicgaming.com/museum/colecovision/
You're right about the involvement of Sony and Microsoft. Sony only became involved at Nintendo's request for help - a partnership from which they withdrew, thinking that CD wasn't a viable gaming platform.
Sony then turned the industry from niche market to megabucks industry, which obviously then attracted Microsoft.
However, had the market not crashed in 1984, the story would have been different entirely, and it's likely that ColecoVision would be the dominant force. Even Nintendo may not have entered the market.
Check your videogame history. There's no doubt that Nintendo have done a lot for the games industry, but they certainly don't deserve to be credited for things they didn't do.
> They weren't analouge, they were digital. If you pushed them a little
> bit, the little guy on the screen ran the same speed as if you pushed
> it hard.
Okay, as you're obviously stupid, I'll re-quote part of my earlier post:
-----
Also http://www.channel3games.com/platforms/5200.shtml from which I quote:
"The 5200 did introduce several innovations that remain with us today. It was the first system to offer four controller ports, though it was also available in a (more common) two-port version that virtually assured a dearth of four-player games. It was also the first system to offer truly analog control"
-----
The joysticks were fully analogue. All that the movement speed means is that the coders for particular games used basic directional input code and didn't take advantage of the full range of motion. I had one of the consoles with similar analogue controls, in which the amount of stick movement varied the speed of movement on screen.
> And I didn't think they were consoles
They were cartridge-based and played games. What would you call them?
> ..but anyway it never would have become as big if Nintendo hadn't joined
> and that would have probably led to no Sony or Microsoft involvment
> either.
Before the videogame market crashed in 1984 (bet you didn't even know it had a crash), ColecoVision had sold six million units in three years, and if not for the crash, it would most likely have been the system of choice throughout the 80s.
It was also the first home system to host Mario in Donkey Kong. http://www.classicgaming.com/museum/colecovision/
You're right about the involvement of Sony and Microsoft. Sony only became involved at Nintendo's request for help - a partnership from which they withdrew, thinking that CD wasn't a viable gaming platform.
Sony then turned the industry from niche market to megabucks industry, which obviously then attracted Microsoft.
However, had the market not crashed in 1984, the story would have been different entirely, and it's likely that ColecoVision would be the dominant force. Even Nintendo may not have entered the market.
Check your videogame history. There's no doubt that Nintendo have done a lot for the games industry, but they certainly don't deserve to be credited for things they didn't do.
If you were with me tonight. I would sing to you just one time.... a song full of hearts to live.. may God let it live.
Mac.
Mac.
Turbonutter wrote:
"I can't believe you're only the 2nd person - and the first I spelled it out to in IRC, although I think he could have guessed."
To be honest, yes, I could have. :0D Finding it a bit hard to believe too myself...
"As I say, I deserve 2 GADs for this, at least."
Definitely one, without a doubt. :0)
"I can't believe you're only the 2nd person - and the first I spelled it out to in IRC, although I think he could have guessed."
To be honest, yes, I could have. :0D Finding it a bit hard to believe too myself...
"As I say, I deserve 2 GADs for this, at least."
Definitely one, without a doubt. :0)
Yes, and we'd still be stuck with unoriginal remakes of old games in a happy happy cute pink land if it weren't for Sega, Sony and friends.
BUT SHUT UP!
This isn't an argument about games or consoles, I can't believe you have turned it in to this.
In fact, I can, it's because you KNOW you can't win against me on this one. Come on, admit it!
BUT SHUT UP!
This isn't an argument about games or consoles, I can't believe you have turned it in to this.
In fact, I can, it's because you KNOW you can't win against me on this one. Come on, admit it!
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> Whitestripes wrote:
> Lets put it this way, if Nintendo had never exsisted there would be:
> a) No home console market
> c) No analouge stick on console controllers
>
>
> Feck me, do people not read my posts, or do they just ignore what I
> say to p.ss me off?
>
> There were MANY home consoles BEFORE Nintendo entered the market, and
> Atari were the first to include analogue sticks on a console.
>
> I can take bias and I can live with arguments, but ignoring the FACTS
> because you want to think that Nintendo invented the whole thing just
> makes you a moron.
They weren't analouge, they were digital. If you pushed them a little bit, the little guy on the screen ran the same speed as if you pushed it hard. And I didn't think they were consoles..but anyway it never would have become as big if Nintendo hadn't joined and that would have probably led to no Sony or Microsoft involvment either.
> Whitestripes wrote:
> Lets put it this way, if Nintendo had never exsisted there would be:
> a) No home console market
> c) No analouge stick on console controllers
>
>
> Feck me, do people not read my posts, or do they just ignore what I
> say to p.ss me off?
>
> There were MANY home consoles BEFORE Nintendo entered the market, and
> Atari were the first to include analogue sticks on a console.
>
> I can take bias and I can live with arguments, but ignoring the FACTS
> because you want to think that Nintendo invented the whole thing just
> makes you a moron.
They weren't analouge, they were digital. If you pushed them a little bit, the little guy on the screen ran the same speed as if you pushed it hard. And I didn't think they were consoles..but anyway it never would have become as big if Nintendo hadn't joined and that would have probably led to no Sony or Microsoft involvment either.
This topic is a load of crap.
Can't any of you just accept that Macintosh rule and make the best console.
God damn your iggnorance.
Can't any of you just accept that Macintosh rule and make the best console.
God damn your iggnorance.
Strafex wrote:
> Well Turbo, you truly succeeded in stirring a fuss.
>
> 135+ posts?
>
> There hasn't been a Prime post this popular in AGES!
> And they wonder why we love our console wars... :-)
I can't believe you're only the 2nd person - and the first I spelled it out to in IRC, although I think he could have guessed.
And I EVEN made a post in Chat saying I don't mind Nintendo.
As I say, I deserve 2 GADs for this, at least.
> Well Turbo, you truly succeeded in stirring a fuss.
>
> 135+ posts?
>
> There hasn't been a Prime post this popular in AGES!
> And they wonder why we love our console wars... :-)
I can't believe you're only the 2nd person - and the first I spelled it out to in IRC, although I think he could have guessed.
And I EVEN made a post in Chat saying I don't mind Nintendo.
As I say, I deserve 2 GADs for this, at least.
Tiltawhirl wrote:
> Turbonutter wrote:
> because if you're using both analog
> sticks then you can't get at any buttons can you!
>
> That shows how badly designed the Dualshock is, other than the D pad I
> have no problems reaching any of the buttons whilst using both sticks
> on the Cube pad.
...
...
I really don't believe you said that. How can you use both the GC's analog sticks at the same time - even though one is actually an analog C button - and say it's better when you can only get at 2 buttons? It's a testament to the DualShock 2 that you can have dual analog while having access to 4 other ANALOG buttons, which at their most basic level can double to 8.
> *realises he doesn't want to get involved in this stupid debate*
>
> oh crap i've done it now
> Turbonutter wrote:
> because if you're using both analog
> sticks then you can't get at any buttons can you!
>
> That shows how badly designed the Dualshock is, other than the D pad I
> have no problems reaching any of the buttons whilst using both sticks
> on the Cube pad.
...
...
I really don't believe you said that. How can you use both the GC's analog sticks at the same time - even though one is actually an analog C button - and say it's better when you can only get at 2 buttons? It's a testament to the DualShock 2 that you can have dual analog while having access to 4 other ANALOG buttons, which at their most basic level can double to 8.
> *realises he doesn't want to get involved in this stupid debate*
>
> oh crap i've done it now
Page: