The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Hey everybody, this is really bugging me lately as a Ps2 owner and a game fan!
I am seeing too much of this now, i noticed it first on Game Network, people who txt in saying the Ps2 is bad and old and the developers only do games for it because it is old and more people own it!
wrong, wrong, WRONG!
I would like to start on the first statement that i mentioned, it is old! 2 years old, the graphics are still as good, the only thing i notice bewteen my GC and Ps2 is the fact tha the GC loads faster and has 4 controler ports, the graphics are the same, and X-box and GC saw what Sony did, marvelled at it and improved, but i can guarantee that the Ps3 will be fast loading too! Then Nintendo may bring out a newer console that loads faster a year or two after, it is just in those years new technology is formed and people can not see the fact that when the Ps2 was new the broke the limits graphically, the loading was fairly fats and even now i consider it not to be slow, do any of you? This is very annoying, everything gets old, it is not a reason to hate it, people happen to like retro games but the Ps2 is not retro gaming, it is new, the games still astound people and you sit back in your chair with a drink in your left hand, the controller in the other thinking, how do they do that, it is amazing!
So the Ps2 is not bad and old, it is a high quality, great iece of technology that will be considered so for years to come!
Now onto the next point in which the developers make games as pepole own it! First, let me tell you about the whole thing people said, they said the GC only has fewer games as the developers choose to make games for sony as the console was out first and people boguht that console, now as millions own a Ps2 it is logical to put games out for the Ps2, again this is wrong, but truth is held in there somewhere. it is logical to make games as more people own it, so they make more money, but also Sony has high quality games that are multi format, the GC has millions of owners in Japan and has many new original games coming out, as it is a good console and the different console can do different things, so companies choose either the one they have deals with, the one the game suits most or the put the game out on them all! The Ps2 will still have new games coming out in a years time, that the GC or X-box will never see, and they will be just as good!
I am sorry but this really annoyed me and i think you will all agree it is wrong to say that about one of the greatest consoles ever, i am not putting the GC or X-box down as i own a GC and am very happy with the list of games coming out, the X-box is not my cup of tea but everyone likes differnt things, i am a fan of RPG's and multiplayers so i opted for the consoles which suit me most!
Thank you all for reading
Sir Auron
:)
I am seeing too much of this now, i noticed it first on Game Network, people who txt in saying the Ps2 is bad and old and the developers only do games for it because it is old and more people own it!
wrong, wrong, WRONG!
I would like to start on the first statement that i mentioned, it is old! 2 years old, the graphics are still as good, the only thing i notice bewteen my GC and Ps2 is the fact tha the GC loads faster and has 4 controler ports, the graphics are the same, and X-box and GC saw what Sony did, marvelled at it and improved, but i can guarantee that the Ps3 will be fast loading too! Then Nintendo may bring out a newer console that loads faster a year or two after, it is just in those years new technology is formed and people can not see the fact that when the Ps2 was new the broke the limits graphically, the loading was fairly fats and even now i consider it not to be slow, do any of you? This is very annoying, everything gets old, it is not a reason to hate it, people happen to like retro games but the Ps2 is not retro gaming, it is new, the games still astound people and you sit back in your chair with a drink in your left hand, the controller in the other thinking, how do they do that, it is amazing!
So the Ps2 is not bad and old, it is a high quality, great iece of technology that will be considered so for years to come!
Now onto the next point in which the developers make games as pepole own it! First, let me tell you about the whole thing people said, they said the GC only has fewer games as the developers choose to make games for sony as the console was out first and people boguht that console, now as millions own a Ps2 it is logical to put games out for the Ps2, again this is wrong, but truth is held in there somewhere. it is logical to make games as more people own it, so they make more money, but also Sony has high quality games that are multi format, the GC has millions of owners in Japan and has many new original games coming out, as it is a good console and the different console can do different things, so companies choose either the one they have deals with, the one the game suits most or the put the game out on them all! The Ps2 will still have new games coming out in a years time, that the GC or X-box will never see, and they will be just as good!
I am sorry but this really annoyed me and i think you will all agree it is wrong to say that about one of the greatest consoles ever, i am not putting the GC or X-box down as i own a GC and am very happy with the list of games coming out, the X-box is not my cup of tea but everyone likes differnt things, i am a fan of RPG's and multiplayers so i opted for the consoles which suit me most!
Thank you all for reading
Sir Auron
:)
Page:
gamezfreak wrote:
> Excellent Reply Sibs! Yes a Console should'nt be judged on ita various
> fancy-hardware, it should be judged on its games. I brought my xbox
> for its excellent games (and loads more to come on the long term).
>
> I hate comments like these: -
>
> "The XBOX is crap because its big"
> "The Gamecube is the worst console ever because it looks like a
> handbag"
> "The PS2 is the best because its thinner than the XBOX and its
> sold more"
>
> Every Console is good in its own rights.
I think that we have finally found some people who understand what i was saying, i said i like every console! But i chose the two that suited me best as i could only afford two!
This was not a console war for the last time! Never was it meant to be but people who misunderstand turn it into that!
So all take note of gamez here!
> Excellent Reply Sibs! Yes a Console should'nt be judged on ita various
> fancy-hardware, it should be judged on its games. I brought my xbox
> for its excellent games (and loads more to come on the long term).
>
> I hate comments like these: -
>
> "The XBOX is crap because its big"
> "The Gamecube is the worst console ever because it looks like a
> handbag"
> "The PS2 is the best because its thinner than the XBOX and its
> sold more"
>
> Every Console is good in its own rights.
I think that we have finally found some people who understand what i was saying, i said i like every console! But i chose the two that suited me best as i could only afford two!
This was not a console war for the last time! Never was it meant to be but people who misunderstand turn it into that!
So all take note of gamez here!
After only 2 years, the PS2 is showing its age. PS3 will come out sooner than you think.
Excellent Reply Sibs! Yes a Console should'nt be judged on ita various fancy-hardware, it should be judged on its games. I brought my xbox for its excellent games (and loads more to come on the long term).
I hate comments like these: -
"The XBOX is crap because its big"
"The Gamecube is the worst console ever because it looks like a handbag"
"The PS2 is the best because its thinner than the XBOX and its sold more"
Every Console is good in its own rights.
I hate comments like these: -
"The XBOX is crap because its big"
"The Gamecube is the worst console ever because it looks like a handbag"
"The PS2 is the best because its thinner than the XBOX and its sold more"
Every Console is good in its own rights.
I think the whole console wars debate is redundant before you start it anyway, simply because no one can decide on what makes a console good. Some people prance around stating technical figures that mean jack in the real world, others state their funky bonus features, laying CDs and DVDs, others compare price, size, controllers, blah blah. Half the time the one thing that SHOULD matter (ie games) gets overlooked, and even when they are compared, you can never have a definitive opinion, because that's just it, you have an opinion on a game, everyone else will have their own different opinion. You're not right, they're not wrong, you just have different opinions. So stop whining on about which console is best.
Mr Ripper wrote:
> The PS2 gets grief because it is older, and rightly so! Sonyphiles are
> always going on about how much of an advantage they have, but ignore
> they amount of time that the console has been on the market.
Sony has won the console war. Everybody knows it. It's not really that much of a selling point to the 'educated' gamer anymore. No matter how long the GC and XBOX have to catch up, they won't reach the sales that the PS2 has notched up.
> The PS2 gets grief because it is older, and rightly so! Sonyphiles are
> always going on about how much of an advantage they have, but ignore
> they amount of time that the console has been on the market.
Sony has won the console war. Everybody knows it. It's not really that much of a selling point to the 'educated' gamer anymore. No matter how long the GC and XBOX have to catch up, they won't reach the sales that the PS2 has notched up.
Sir Auron wrote:
> ha ha ha ha!
>
> The bunch of you make me laugh, now where shall i begin?
> Oh the possibilities!
moron
> i think that none of you understood what i meant, just like so many
> before you,
meaning either the world is stupid or just you are. which is the more likely?
> All i am saying is that the Ps2 gets grief because it is older, it is
> an opinion, i don't care if you don't like FF bacause it is so called
> in a link of games! yea thats right!
The PS2 gets grief because it is older, and rightly so! Sonyphiles are always going on about how much of an advantage they have, but ignore they amount of time that the console has been on the market.
> Many RPGs have ATB battling system! The characters are different and
> the plot is too, the whole point of the game! In fact the only things
> in common are the name of the game, they are RPGs, there is always a
> man named Cid and the battling system is simlair, FFX is diff. to
> FF7!
a man named Cid, chocobos, characters (hidden or otherwise) named Biggs and Jessie (or Wedge can't remember which) constant imagery of cats (due to the japanese obsessio with them in cartoon form) a battling system, an experience system, magic attributes, armour types and names, negative effects, *ultima* in many forms, meteor references be they magical or otherwise, the same childish sense of humour, rah rah rah rah.
In fact, without looking at the name, you can pick up any FF game, and realise it's a final fantasy game within minutes of playing it. if they were completely removed, they would likely be named differently.
> The Ps2 is just as good as the GC you all did the old, i hate the Ps2
> wah ha ha! I love the GC and X-box, that is what makes a console war,
> i said all are good!
you previously stated that GC has faster loading times than the PS2, and now you're claiming they are both the same? Contradiction.The PS2 technology is almost 4 years old now, the GC tech is relatively new, and in some respects, superior. the PS2 fanatics can claim that the PS2 is superior on the basis of the DVD drive, but the price difference between the two is pretty much enough to buy a DVD with anyway. That is, if for some reason you don't own one already.
> Someone please get the point of this, i thik only two people have!
I see your point, but you aren't putting it across very well, and hence you are getting negative feedback. This is your fault, not ours.
> *holds his head in his hands*
and well you should
> it is simple enough, is it not?
if anyone else were trying to make this point, I would guess so.
> ha ha ha ha!
>
> The bunch of you make me laugh, now where shall i begin?
> Oh the possibilities!
moron
> i think that none of you understood what i meant, just like so many
> before you,
meaning either the world is stupid or just you are. which is the more likely?
> All i am saying is that the Ps2 gets grief because it is older, it is
> an opinion, i don't care if you don't like FF bacause it is so called
> in a link of games! yea thats right!
The PS2 gets grief because it is older, and rightly so! Sonyphiles are always going on about how much of an advantage they have, but ignore they amount of time that the console has been on the market.
> Many RPGs have ATB battling system! The characters are different and
> the plot is too, the whole point of the game! In fact the only things
> in common are the name of the game, they are RPGs, there is always a
> man named Cid and the battling system is simlair, FFX is diff. to
> FF7!
a man named Cid, chocobos, characters (hidden or otherwise) named Biggs and Jessie (or Wedge can't remember which) constant imagery of cats (due to the japanese obsessio with them in cartoon form) a battling system, an experience system, magic attributes, armour types and names, negative effects, *ultima* in many forms, meteor references be they magical or otherwise, the same childish sense of humour, rah rah rah rah.
In fact, without looking at the name, you can pick up any FF game, and realise it's a final fantasy game within minutes of playing it. if they were completely removed, they would likely be named differently.
> The Ps2 is just as good as the GC you all did the old, i hate the Ps2
> wah ha ha! I love the GC and X-box, that is what makes a console war,
> i said all are good!
you previously stated that GC has faster loading times than the PS2, and now you're claiming they are both the same? Contradiction.The PS2 technology is almost 4 years old now, the GC tech is relatively new, and in some respects, superior. the PS2 fanatics can claim that the PS2 is superior on the basis of the DVD drive, but the price difference between the two is pretty much enough to buy a DVD with anyway. That is, if for some reason you don't own one already.
> Someone please get the point of this, i thik only two people have!
I see your point, but you aren't putting it across very well, and hence you are getting negative feedback. This is your fault, not ours.
> *holds his head in his hands*
and well you should
> it is simple enough, is it not?
if anyone else were trying to make this point, I would guess so.
They've done a few attempts at the origin of Zelda, but they're never actually that, just some weird mixture. I think the reason it was assumed OoT was the first part of the story, is that Ganondorf is still Ganondorf, but then link to the past had him in as Aghanim then as his Ganon form at the end (much like OoT). It does all follow one storyline though, convoluted as it is, its the story of Zelda - and you play it out through the role of link.
FF games haven't been linked in a long time though, closest you could come to a link between the titles now, is Chocobo racing as that's appeared in a few of the later ones.
FF games haven't been linked in a long time though, closest you could come to a link between the titles now, is Chocobo racing as that's appeared in a few of the later ones.
Pointless Babble wrote:
> Solskjær wrote:
> Then why give them such lame names like FF I, II, III...., IX, X and
> XI???
> Names like Majora's Mask and Link to the Past make games sound
> interesting!
>
> The Legend of Zelda
> The Legend of Zelda 2: The Adventure of Link
> The Legend of Zelda 3: Link to the Past
> The Legend of Zelda 4: Link's Awakening
>
> Oh they did. Its only recently they've dropped them altogether. ;)
> You'll also note that Squaresoft were by and large (and are again now)
> Nintendo's bed buddies, they only branched off when the N64 was
> released, because they insisted on having CD-ROM functionality for
> their later titles. Doesn't it sort of defeat the point of your post
> when you're slating one of what are largely two Nintendo/Multi
> developments?
The games series has gone like this:
The Legend of Zelda
The Legend of Zelda: Adventures of Link
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (no '3' at all - holding the box of the SNES game infront of me now)
The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (no '4' at all - got the "Mario's Classics" box with me now)
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening DX
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask
The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages
The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons
You see, the Zelda games are 'link'-ed to each other in that they are each based on the original, but there were no numbers in the titles. Shops and fans reffering to the games for some reason called Majora's Mask 'Zelda 2' and referred to the other games as 'Zelda x' (x being a number) so as to get rid of the need to type The 'Legend of Zelda' and then the title of the Zelda game.
Note the above titles exclude the three Phillips CD-i games (not actually made by Nintendo) and the SNES Satellite games.
The Final Fantasy games are linked to each other through the characters and are based on different times (so my brother tells me - being a fan of the series), but it's right the numbers don't necessarily mean the Final Fantasy games are sequels to each other. Afterall, some people claim Ocarina of Time to be the first part of the whole Zelda timeline!
> Solskjær wrote:
> Then why give them such lame names like FF I, II, III...., IX, X and
> XI???
> Names like Majora's Mask and Link to the Past make games sound
> interesting!
>
> The Legend of Zelda
> The Legend of Zelda 2: The Adventure of Link
> The Legend of Zelda 3: Link to the Past
> The Legend of Zelda 4: Link's Awakening
>
> Oh they did. Its only recently they've dropped them altogether. ;)
> You'll also note that Squaresoft were by and large (and are again now)
> Nintendo's bed buddies, they only branched off when the N64 was
> released, because they insisted on having CD-ROM functionality for
> their later titles. Doesn't it sort of defeat the point of your post
> when you're slating one of what are largely two Nintendo/Multi
> developments?
The games series has gone like this:
The Legend of Zelda
The Legend of Zelda: Adventures of Link
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (no '3' at all - holding the box of the SNES game infront of me now)
The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (no '4' at all - got the "Mario's Classics" box with me now)
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening DX
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask
The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages
The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons
You see, the Zelda games are 'link'-ed to each other in that they are each based on the original, but there were no numbers in the titles. Shops and fans reffering to the games for some reason called Majora's Mask 'Zelda 2' and referred to the other games as 'Zelda x' (x being a number) so as to get rid of the need to type The 'Legend of Zelda' and then the title of the Zelda game.
Note the above titles exclude the three Phillips CD-i games (not actually made by Nintendo) and the SNES Satellite games.
The Final Fantasy games are linked to each other through the characters and are based on different times (so my brother tells me - being a fan of the series), but it's right the numbers don't necessarily mean the Final Fantasy games are sequels to each other. Afterall, some people claim Ocarina of Time to be the first part of the whole Zelda timeline!
Solskjær wrote:
> Then why give them such lame names like FF I, II, III...., IX, X and
> XI???
> Names like Majora's Mask and Link to the Past make games sound
> interesting!
The Legend of Zelda
The Legend of Zelda 2: The Adventure of Link
The Legend of Zelda 3: Link to the Past
The Legend of Zelda 4: Link's Awakening
Oh they did. Its only recently they've dropped them altogether. ;)
You'll also note that Squaresoft were by and large (and are again now) Nintendo's bed buddies, they only branched off when the N64 was released, because they insisted on having CD-ROM functionality for their later titles. Doesn't it sort of defeat the point of your post when you're slating one of what are largely two Nintendo/Multi developments?
> Then why give them such lame names like FF I, II, III...., IX, X and
> XI???
> Names like Majora's Mask and Link to the Past make games sound
> interesting!
The Legend of Zelda
The Legend of Zelda 2: The Adventure of Link
The Legend of Zelda 3: Link to the Past
The Legend of Zelda 4: Link's Awakening
Oh they did. Its only recently they've dropped them altogether. ;)
You'll also note that Squaresoft were by and large (and are again now) Nintendo's bed buddies, they only branched off when the N64 was released, because they insisted on having CD-ROM functionality for their later titles. Doesn't it sort of defeat the point of your post when you're slating one of what are largely two Nintendo/Multi developments?
ha ha ha ha!
The bunch of you make me laugh, now where shall i begin?
Oh the possibilities!
i think that none of you understood what i meant, just like so many before you, secondly you were trying to make it a console war, i own a GC, GBA, PC and Ps2, i like all of them!
All i am saying is that the Ps2 gets grief because it is older, it is an opinion, i don't care if you don't like FF bacause it is so called in a link of games! yea thats right!
Many RPGs have ATB battling system! The characters are different and the plot is too, the whole point of the game! In fact the only things in common are the name of the game, they are RPGs, there is always a man named Cid and the battling system is simlair, FFX is diff. to FF7!
The Ps2 is just as good as the GC you all did the old, i hate the Ps2 wah ha ha! I love the GC and X-box, that is what makes a console war, i said all are good!
Someone please get the point of this, i thik only two people have!
*holds his head in his hands*
it is simple enough, is it not?
Sir Auron
The bunch of you make me laugh, now where shall i begin?
Oh the possibilities!
i think that none of you understood what i meant, just like so many before you, secondly you were trying to make it a console war, i own a GC, GBA, PC and Ps2, i like all of them!
All i am saying is that the Ps2 gets grief because it is older, it is an opinion, i don't care if you don't like FF bacause it is so called in a link of games! yea thats right!
Many RPGs have ATB battling system! The characters are different and the plot is too, the whole point of the game! In fact the only things in common are the name of the game, they are RPGs, there is always a man named Cid and the battling system is simlair, FFX is diff. to FF7!
The Ps2 is just as good as the GC you all did the old, i hate the Ps2 wah ha ha! I love the GC and X-box, that is what makes a console war, i said all are good!
Someone please get the point of this, i thik only two people have!
*holds his head in his hands*
it is simple enough, is it not?
Sir Auron
Page: