The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
PS2.
Now what has the PS2 really and truly going for it now?
Metal Gear Substance Hmm?
Well possibly, that's if you don't have the truly excellent MGS2 though.
But then there is Devil May Cry 2, all those pointless Mario Clones that will never succeed in Bettering Mario Sunshine such as Ratchet and Clank, because lets face it Mario Sunshine WILL be good, great in fact, Miyamoto is on Full Time with this one.
But really, think about it now of any other release that is a genuine buy will also be on Gamecube and Xbox. And when that happens we get better visuals with the GC and Xbox so why bother with PS2 versions?
And its been done before- Burnout it is Visually Better on GC than it is on PS2. Like- oooh so many others.......
Which brings me onto the PS2 graphics, they are sub standard!
The Majority of Games are very washed out looking- GTA3 for one and most have Jagged Edges too, plus the Flickering is appalling in some games.
Face it Sonyphiles, out of the three consoles that is out there the PS2 is the worst in terms of Visuals. The best in Visuals has to be the Gamecube followed by the Xbox. Im not being biased either, but its what I have seen and witnessed and played on EACH system to form that opinion, I own each system and take a very un-biased approach to each, if a game looks crap or plays crap ill not be afraid to say to others that it is crap, full stop.
Then we have the PS2 Controller, which is quite frankly against the other three consoles ranking Number two next to the Mighty Comfortable Gamecube effort. Having Nintendo ideas welded onto the Dual Shock (And inside the Plastic thing) it still gets a little too un-comfortable, which is shocking given where the ideas come from, the left analogue stick is awkwardly placed- fidgety and a pain. And the Analogue buttons are useless.
But lets ask one thing...A beloved machine? yes by countless millions, is the mightey PS2!.
It is only in the position it is now due to its older brother and its older brother was only successful because of Nintendo.
It is loved and cherished for all the wrong reasons, many people out there who stick by it are just too biased, too darn built up with their own mystic fantasies of it that they refuse to sample the delights of any other system. These same people, which the majority are teens, not the Teens that Sony claim to be aiming for but Children! Little children and older children. They have all got it into their head that the PS2 is the best thing ever created, they are the same people who's first console was the PS and never owned a non-Sony console in their life, which makes them blinkered even further.
Nintendo on the other hand have an average age group of 23 who own Gamecube's, consider that. And the Nintendo players have a long history with the company.
Sonyphiles, open your eyes. Sample the delights that is out there that hasn't a Sony Logo on it. You see, what I think is that Sonyphiles are afraid to do that, afraid to sample other machines to spend hours and nights and days on the greats of the XBox and GC in case they are drawn from the Sickly Beloved PS2's and realising there is better out there...by a mile!.
Am I right?
Now what has the PS2 really and truly going for it now?
Metal Gear Substance Hmm?
Well possibly, that's if you don't have the truly excellent MGS2 though.
But then there is Devil May Cry 2, all those pointless Mario Clones that will never succeed in Bettering Mario Sunshine such as Ratchet and Clank, because lets face it Mario Sunshine WILL be good, great in fact, Miyamoto is on Full Time with this one.
But really, think about it now of any other release that is a genuine buy will also be on Gamecube and Xbox. And when that happens we get better visuals with the GC and Xbox so why bother with PS2 versions?
And its been done before- Burnout it is Visually Better on GC than it is on PS2. Like- oooh so many others.......
Which brings me onto the PS2 graphics, they are sub standard!
The Majority of Games are very washed out looking- GTA3 for one and most have Jagged Edges too, plus the Flickering is appalling in some games.
Face it Sonyphiles, out of the three consoles that is out there the PS2 is the worst in terms of Visuals. The best in Visuals has to be the Gamecube followed by the Xbox. Im not being biased either, but its what I have seen and witnessed and played on EACH system to form that opinion, I own each system and take a very un-biased approach to each, if a game looks crap or plays crap ill not be afraid to say to others that it is crap, full stop.
Then we have the PS2 Controller, which is quite frankly against the other three consoles ranking Number two next to the Mighty Comfortable Gamecube effort. Having Nintendo ideas welded onto the Dual Shock (And inside the Plastic thing) it still gets a little too un-comfortable, which is shocking given where the ideas come from, the left analogue stick is awkwardly placed- fidgety and a pain. And the Analogue buttons are useless.
But lets ask one thing...A beloved machine? yes by countless millions, is the mightey PS2!.
It is only in the position it is now due to its older brother and its older brother was only successful because of Nintendo.
It is loved and cherished for all the wrong reasons, many people out there who stick by it are just too biased, too darn built up with their own mystic fantasies of it that they refuse to sample the delights of any other system. These same people, which the majority are teens, not the Teens that Sony claim to be aiming for but Children! Little children and older children. They have all got it into their head that the PS2 is the best thing ever created, they are the same people who's first console was the PS and never owned a non-Sony console in their life, which makes them blinkered even further.
Nintendo on the other hand have an average age group of 23 who own Gamecube's, consider that. And the Nintendo players have a long history with the company.
Sonyphiles, open your eyes. Sample the delights that is out there that hasn't a Sony Logo on it. You see, what I think is that Sonyphiles are afraid to do that, afraid to sample other machines to spend hours and nights and days on the greats of the XBox and GC in case they are drawn from the Sickly Beloved PS2's and realising there is better out there...by a mile!.
Am I right?
Page:
God, It's getting really sad when I can counteract every argument with a post I wrote several months ago.
---------------------
28.10.01 Fun.doc
---------------------
I’m, getting a bit ticked off with all the “GameCube fun” that’s being splashed around, especially by Dringo.
All the quotes taken below are from various topic by various people.
“Oh and the PS2 still improving graphics why can't they do a Nintendo and say thats it no need to improve graphics any further time to sit back and make fun games??????”
Er, what? You’re saying Sony don’t make fun games and only care about graphics? I don’t know where you got that idea from, especially seeing as the first comment made about Resident Evil is “Oooh, look at the graphics”. Nobody seems to care that it’s exactly the same game, STILL with static backgrounds.
You are also implying that PS2 games aren’t fun. Have you even played GTA3? Have you even played TimeSplitters, SSX or Starfighter, for that matter? These games have some of the best graphics on the PS2. Starfighter in particular has amazing graphics, especially on land missions. It’s also extremely good FUN; just play the Nym’s base mission. TimeSplitters is also a realistic yet fun game. It features real weapon, real levels and real deaths. “Oh, but it looks real, it can’t be any fun”. Bollards. GoldenEye? Same argument.
“I tell you Sony's Playstation is on a mission to mimick real life as realistically as possible whilst Nintendo are doing what the gaming industry was made to do what it started off being, Fun the idea of a toy rather than a entertainment system i want to play games for fun!”
So do I! So do all of us! GTA3, incredible fun (mm, sniper rifle...). An common target is also GT3, saying it’s too “realistic” to be fun. Erm, excuse me? Yes, maybe some of the endurance but none of the others. It depends how you play it. If you’re a sissy and leave the ASM and TCS on, then yes it can be a bit boring at times in some cars. However, turn them off and drive like a real man (also with maximum realism) it’s extremely fun, especially on rallies. Will you spin out, won’t you spin out? Can you hold this drift? Brilliant stuff. I think a lot of Nintys are just jealous that we have it and you don’t, and that’s understandable. One last example is Burnout, again one of the most realistic games on the PS2. I dare any of you to say it doesn’t sound fun.
“When he said Younger audience, he meant gamers who wanted fun exciting games rather than the old farts who prefer their racers with all the dull parts or realism but all danger and excitement removed.”
There’s that word again. What is this, the eternal excuse? “We don’t want GT3 because we want fun games”, “We don’t like realism because it’s not fun”, “Nintendo is concentrating more on fun than graphics”. WHAT THE HELL? Er, Excitebike? Am I the only one that’s noticed how much you lot having been raving about this game? Am I mistaken in thinking it features real bikes? Jeez, I went on for weeks thinking this was a kind of Extreme-G style game until I was told, the amount you go on about hating realism. The fact is, the N6 can’t handle realistic games because of texture problems. Have you ever noticed that an awful lot of N64 games have very little textures? That’s why, and sadly life features an awful lot of textures. I’d also like to pick up on the word “exciting” in that paragraph. What I’ve noticed a LOT is that loads of Nintendo games are devoid of excitement. Zelda, Mario, Pikmin, Luigi’s Mansion, Banjo, etc… are all quite ambling games in general with the odd spot of fighting every now and again, but nothing really to get your heart racing. Sure there are always exceptions (GoldenEye, Perfect Dark) as there are exceptions on the PS (Spyro, Croc) but I’ll think everyone will agree that PlayStation, and more so PlayStation 2 games are in general more exciting than Nintendo’s. Do you want to disagree? Well someone will but I doubt you’ll have much luck in persuading me otherwise, particularly seeing as I’ve said this countless times before (it was even my tagline once) and no one disagreed.
There, I’ve said my bit now. To sum up: A lot of Nintys are using the “fun” excuse an awful lot these days and it’s utter bollards. All games are fun, otherwise we wouldn’t buy them. They’re also saying that the PS2 is aiming for realism whereas the GameCube is aiming for fun. Er, it’s the same thing isn’t it? Realism is still as fun (possibly more) as the Nintendo cartoony-style but most people don’t want to admit it. Even the ultra, ultra realistic Resident Evil, Silent Hill 2 and Metal Gear Solid 2 games are immense fun as well as being very scary/intense. If you think that Nintendo games are better then that’s your opinion, but please, think up a more original (and relevant) reason for once.
---------------------
28.10.01 Fun.doc
---------------------
I’m, getting a bit ticked off with all the “GameCube fun” that’s being splashed around, especially by Dringo.
All the quotes taken below are from various topic by various people.
“Oh and the PS2 still improving graphics why can't they do a Nintendo and say thats it no need to improve graphics any further time to sit back and make fun games??????”
Er, what? You’re saying Sony don’t make fun games and only care about graphics? I don’t know where you got that idea from, especially seeing as the first comment made about Resident Evil is “Oooh, look at the graphics”. Nobody seems to care that it’s exactly the same game, STILL with static backgrounds.
You are also implying that PS2 games aren’t fun. Have you even played GTA3? Have you even played TimeSplitters, SSX or Starfighter, for that matter? These games have some of the best graphics on the PS2. Starfighter in particular has amazing graphics, especially on land missions. It’s also extremely good FUN; just play the Nym’s base mission. TimeSplitters is also a realistic yet fun game. It features real weapon, real levels and real deaths. “Oh, but it looks real, it can’t be any fun”. Bollards. GoldenEye? Same argument.
“I tell you Sony's Playstation is on a mission to mimick real life as realistically as possible whilst Nintendo are doing what the gaming industry was made to do what it started off being, Fun the idea of a toy rather than a entertainment system i want to play games for fun!”
So do I! So do all of us! GTA3, incredible fun (mm, sniper rifle...). An common target is also GT3, saying it’s too “realistic” to be fun. Erm, excuse me? Yes, maybe some of the endurance but none of the others. It depends how you play it. If you’re a sissy and leave the ASM and TCS on, then yes it can be a bit boring at times in some cars. However, turn them off and drive like a real man (also with maximum realism) it’s extremely fun, especially on rallies. Will you spin out, won’t you spin out? Can you hold this drift? Brilliant stuff. I think a lot of Nintys are just jealous that we have it and you don’t, and that’s understandable. One last example is Burnout, again one of the most realistic games on the PS2. I dare any of you to say it doesn’t sound fun.
“When he said Younger audience, he meant gamers who wanted fun exciting games rather than the old farts who prefer their racers with all the dull parts or realism but all danger and excitement removed.”
There’s that word again. What is this, the eternal excuse? “We don’t want GT3 because we want fun games”, “We don’t like realism because it’s not fun”, “Nintendo is concentrating more on fun than graphics”. WHAT THE HELL? Er, Excitebike? Am I the only one that’s noticed how much you lot having been raving about this game? Am I mistaken in thinking it features real bikes? Jeez, I went on for weeks thinking this was a kind of Extreme-G style game until I was told, the amount you go on about hating realism. The fact is, the N6 can’t handle realistic games because of texture problems. Have you ever noticed that an awful lot of N64 games have very little textures? That’s why, and sadly life features an awful lot of textures. I’d also like to pick up on the word “exciting” in that paragraph. What I’ve noticed a LOT is that loads of Nintendo games are devoid of excitement. Zelda, Mario, Pikmin, Luigi’s Mansion, Banjo, etc… are all quite ambling games in general with the odd spot of fighting every now and again, but nothing really to get your heart racing. Sure there are always exceptions (GoldenEye, Perfect Dark) as there are exceptions on the PS (Spyro, Croc) but I’ll think everyone will agree that PlayStation, and more so PlayStation 2 games are in general more exciting than Nintendo’s. Do you want to disagree? Well someone will but I doubt you’ll have much luck in persuading me otherwise, particularly seeing as I’ve said this countless times before (it was even my tagline once) and no one disagreed.
There, I’ve said my bit now. To sum up: A lot of Nintys are using the “fun” excuse an awful lot these days and it’s utter bollards. All games are fun, otherwise we wouldn’t buy them. They’re also saying that the PS2 is aiming for realism whereas the GameCube is aiming for fun. Er, it’s the same thing isn’t it? Realism is still as fun (possibly more) as the Nintendo cartoony-style but most people don’t want to admit it. Even the ultra, ultra realistic Resident Evil, Silent Hill 2 and Metal Gear Solid 2 games are immense fun as well as being very scary/intense. If you think that Nintendo games are better then that’s your opinion, but please, think up a more original (and relevant) reason for once.
˝pint wrote:
> A load of good stuff...
Exactly. And could you honestly tell me that if you were offered the two consoles you don't have and five games of you choice for free, you would say no? Of course you wouldn't. If I was just slightly rich, I'd buy a PS2 and an X-box, and enjoy even more great games.
> A load of good stuff...
Exactly. And could you honestly tell me that if you were offered the two consoles you don't have and five games of you choice for free, you would say no? Of course you wouldn't. If I was just slightly rich, I'd buy a PS2 and an X-box, and enjoy even more great games.
What's great about the PS2?
The huge user fanbase, meaning it is the preferred console of choice for first time developers and license holders.
It has great games such as the now PS2-only (excluding PC, that is) GTA3, the (boring) GT3, MGS2 which is the best game ever to some, FF10 which IS the best game ever (to me), Fun games which aren't classic but are fun such as Devil May Cry, Burnout and SSX Tricky (in my opinion, not a classic but brilliant fun.
What's great about the Xbox?
Every console has a hard drive and broadband capabilities, meaning online games aren't only available to the people who buy the add-ons, and the same goes for the hard drive.
Its got a huge line up of original titles and very few sequels, which is more than the PS2 can say, whose release schedule is littered with sequels.
Its got a big but comfortable controller, well suited for the obviously FPS side of the Xbox.
Plus, there is Halo
What's great about the GameCube?
Its cheap, its powerful and above all, its got plenty of games from Nintendo which assures that there WILL be fun games. Already there are great games such as Luigi's Mansion, Wave Race Blue Storm, Pikmin and Smash Bros Melee.
Its got a great controller which is well designed and comfortable to hold.
Its small, versatile (it has a handle!) and above all, a cute, well designed and nifty little console.
There are great things going for all console, making neither better or worse than the other. There's nothing more infuriating than somebody at the other end of the line trying to convince you the GameCube is best when you own an Xbox and love FPS. Equally, the case is in the opposite way if you love platformers and Nintendo's (supposedly) kiddy games, hate FPS and have a GameCube.
This whole argument is just an 'I'm better than you'. Nobody is better than anybody else, just as no console is the best. Each is unique, and has its own positive and negative points. Remember, the PS2 may have inferior graphics and a less-comfortable controller (don't argue that one), but its got a large range of top-end (not classic) games which ensure fun, whereas the GameCube and Xbox are fairly new to the competition so have a smaller library of titles.
DON'T JUDGE A CONSOLE BY WHAT IT SEEMS TO LACK,
JUDGE IT BY WHAT IT HAS TO OFFER.
The huge user fanbase, meaning it is the preferred console of choice for first time developers and license holders.
It has great games such as the now PS2-only (excluding PC, that is) GTA3, the (boring) GT3, MGS2 which is the best game ever to some, FF10 which IS the best game ever (to me), Fun games which aren't classic but are fun such as Devil May Cry, Burnout and SSX Tricky (in my opinion, not a classic but brilliant fun.
What's great about the Xbox?
Every console has a hard drive and broadband capabilities, meaning online games aren't only available to the people who buy the add-ons, and the same goes for the hard drive.
Its got a huge line up of original titles and very few sequels, which is more than the PS2 can say, whose release schedule is littered with sequels.
Its got a big but comfortable controller, well suited for the obviously FPS side of the Xbox.
Plus, there is Halo
What's great about the GameCube?
Its cheap, its powerful and above all, its got plenty of games from Nintendo which assures that there WILL be fun games. Already there are great games such as Luigi's Mansion, Wave Race Blue Storm, Pikmin and Smash Bros Melee.
Its got a great controller which is well designed and comfortable to hold.
Its small, versatile (it has a handle!) and above all, a cute, well designed and nifty little console.
There are great things going for all console, making neither better or worse than the other. There's nothing more infuriating than somebody at the other end of the line trying to convince you the GameCube is best when you own an Xbox and love FPS. Equally, the case is in the opposite way if you love platformers and Nintendo's (supposedly) kiddy games, hate FPS and have a GameCube.
This whole argument is just an 'I'm better than you'. Nobody is better than anybody else, just as no console is the best. Each is unique, and has its own positive and negative points. Remember, the PS2 may have inferior graphics and a less-comfortable controller (don't argue that one), but its got a large range of top-end (not classic) games which ensure fun, whereas the GameCube and Xbox are fairly new to the competition so have a smaller library of titles.
DON'T JUDGE A CONSOLE BY WHAT IT SEEMS TO LACK,
JUDGE IT BY WHAT IT HAS TO OFFER.
Cyclone wrote:
> A) Turok 4, possibly the best looking multi-format game, is being made
> on GC, then ported onto the other consoles.
> B) If Nintendo are slow, and Sony are fast, give me Nintendo anyday.
> At least you get real quality games from it.
I'd like to point out that I've been playing quality PS2 titles for about 2 years now. It's rubbish to say you want a company to release games slowly! What you want is for Nintendo to release quality quickly. If Nintendo were to release games any slower, they would stop altogether.
> A) Turok 4, possibly the best looking multi-format game, is being made
> on GC, then ported onto the other consoles.
> B) If Nintendo are slow, and Sony are fast, give me Nintendo anyday.
> At least you get real quality games from it.
I'd like to point out that I've been playing quality PS2 titles for about 2 years now. It's rubbish to say you want a company to release games slowly! What you want is for Nintendo to release quality quickly. If Nintendo were to release games any slower, they would stop altogether.
Cyclone wrote:
> Whats Halo 2 going to be then!? A good new game (probably!) The new
> Mario etc etc will all be evolved games not 're-hashes'! I will get
> them too! ;-)
>
>
>
> Anyway, ask Dringo - The originalitys coming out next year!
Well then, next year, IF the originality comes, and IF the originality is good, and IF there are more good games on it than on PS2, I will swap mine for the GC. Why would I want to do so otherwise?
It's all about the games.
Anyone argueing Nintendo's / Microsoft's consoles being more enjoyable than the PS2 is either speculating or biased.
Like I said in my previous post, go into EB or GAME, and look at the shelves. I am disappointed I can't play Rogue Squadron, but I'd be a damn sight more unhappy if I couldn't play GTA3, FFX, MOH:F, GT3 etc. and so on.
I'm glad to see that no-one is screaming about Nintendo's excellent originality concepts, because they're non-existent at the moment. I'm also glad that people are ignoring the raw 'power' of the x-box too, because it's power isn't enough to give it a advantage in the gameplay department.
> Whats Halo 2 going to be then!? A good new game (probably!) The new
> Mario etc etc will all be evolved games not 're-hashes'! I will get
> them too! ;-)
>
>
>
> Anyway, ask Dringo - The originalitys coming out next year!
Well then, next year, IF the originality comes, and IF the originality is good, and IF there are more good games on it than on PS2, I will swap mine for the GC. Why would I want to do so otherwise?
It's all about the games.
Anyone argueing Nintendo's / Microsoft's consoles being more enjoyable than the PS2 is either speculating or biased.
Like I said in my previous post, go into EB or GAME, and look at the shelves. I am disappointed I can't play Rogue Squadron, but I'd be a damn sight more unhappy if I couldn't play GTA3, FFX, MOH:F, GT3 etc. and so on.
I'm glad to see that no-one is screaming about Nintendo's excellent originality concepts, because they're non-existent at the moment. I'm also glad that people are ignoring the raw 'power' of the x-box too, because it's power isn't enough to give it a advantage in the gameplay department.
Whats Halo 2 going to be then!? A good new game (probably!) The new Mario etc etc will all be evolved games not 're-hashes'! I will get them too! ;-)
Anyway, ask Dringo - The originalitys coming out next year!
Anyway, ask Dringo - The originalitys coming out next year!
Tellah wrote:
> .
>
, I wouldn't be half as happy with the limited originality and quantity in the release schedule, or currently in the shops.
Hmmmmmmm........GC has just come out, and have you seen the release list later this year/early next? Mario, Soul Caliber 2, Starfox (or whatever its called) Resi Evil (which looks just slightly good!)Eternal Darkness
Pro Evo (I think...!) Metroid (Game of E3) Wario etc, not to mention other releases frpm other 3rd party makers, and I've missed out a few as well!
Thats just a superb list. I don't know what the PS2 has, but that is good enough for me.
> .
>
, I wouldn't be half as happy with the limited originality and quantity in the release schedule, or currently in the shops.
Hmmmmmmm........GC has just come out, and have you seen the release list later this year/early next? Mario, Soul Caliber 2, Starfox (or whatever its called) Resi Evil (which looks just slightly good!)Eternal Darkness
Pro Evo (I think...!) Metroid (Game of E3) Wario etc, not to mention other releases frpm other 3rd party makers, and I've missed out a few as well!
Thats just a superb list. I don't know what the PS2 has, but that is good enough for me.
Cyclone wrote:
> Turbonutter wrote:
> Yes, but even multiformats schedules are coming out on PS2 first.
>
> And don't forget, it's Nintendo's own fault for being stupid and
> slow,
> as usual.
>
>
> A) Turok 4, possibly the best looking multi-format game, is being made
> on GC, then ported onto the other consoles.
> B) If Nintendo are slow, and Sony are fast, give me Nintendo anyday.
> At least you get real quality games from it.
Sony being fast only hurts them, as they rush games out instead of taking a bit more time to ensure the graphics were a bit more acceptable, or just general tweaking to make the PS2 version comparable to GC and Xbox.
And what was it that Sony said before PS2's launch? Something about they will ensure only the best games come out on PS2 - no crap? ^0-70% of the damn PS2 library is a load of crap!!!
Come on Sony, sort it out! I used to be a loyal fan, swearing I wouldn't defect to Xbox and GC, but it turns out defecting was the best decision I made!
> Turbonutter wrote:
> Yes, but even multiformats schedules are coming out on PS2 first.
>
> And don't forget, it's Nintendo's own fault for being stupid and
> slow,
> as usual.
>
>
> A) Turok 4, possibly the best looking multi-format game, is being made
> on GC, then ported onto the other consoles.
> B) If Nintendo are slow, and Sony are fast, give me Nintendo anyday.
> At least you get real quality games from it.
Sony being fast only hurts them, as they rush games out instead of taking a bit more time to ensure the graphics were a bit more acceptable, or just general tweaking to make the PS2 version comparable to GC and Xbox.
And what was it that Sony said before PS2's launch? Something about they will ensure only the best games come out on PS2 - no crap? ^0-70% of the damn PS2 library is a load of crap!!!
Come on Sony, sort it out! I used to be a loyal fan, swearing I wouldn't defect to Xbox and GC, but it turns out defecting was the best decision I made!
Turbonutter wrote:
> Yes, but even multiformats schedules are coming out on PS2 first.
>
> And don't forget, it's Nintendo's own fault for being stupid and slow,
> as usual.
A) Turok 4, possibly the best looking multi-format game, is being made on GC, then ported onto the other consoles.
B) If Nintendo are slow, and Sony are fast, give me Nintendo anyday. At least you get real quality games from it.
> Yes, but even multiformats schedules are coming out on PS2 first.
>
> And don't forget, it's Nintendo's own fault for being stupid and slow,
> as usual.
A) Turok 4, possibly the best looking multi-format game, is being made on GC, then ported onto the other consoles.
B) If Nintendo are slow, and Sony are fast, give me Nintendo anyday. At least you get real quality games from it.
Page: