The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Hello, I'm back to post and stuff.
Do people still argue over consoles?
Do people still argue over consoles?
Page:
Bonus wrote:
> No, it wasn't the ISS games, it was the american version of Pro Evo.
There is no "american version of Pro Evo". You've got Winning Eleven in Japan and that's it as far as Pro Evo on the gamecube is concerned. I don't know what game you were playing.
Also, when I said the PS2 shoulder buttons were "clicky", I meant they have hardly any travel, so you press them a little bit and whaddayaknow they're fully depressed, which is less satisfying.
And Dringo gave you some perfectly legitimate reasons why the game is better on the GC, and what's wrong with loading times as a reason. It's perfectly valid!
> No, it wasn't the ISS games, it was the american version of Pro Evo.
There is no "american version of Pro Evo". You've got Winning Eleven in Japan and that's it as far as Pro Evo on the gamecube is concerned. I don't know what game you were playing.
Also, when I said the PS2 shoulder buttons were "clicky", I meant they have hardly any travel, so you press them a little bit and whaddayaknow they're fully depressed, which is less satisfying.
And Dringo gave you some perfectly legitimate reasons why the game is better on the GC, and what's wrong with loading times as a reason. It's perfectly valid!
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> Bonus wrote:
> FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> And the GC is more powerful anyway, so can handle it
> all better.
>
> Ha Ha Ha.
>
> What? It is.
Yes, and no.
> Bonus wrote:
> FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> And the GC is more powerful anyway, so can handle it
> all better.
>
> Ha Ha Ha.
>
> What? It is.
Yes, and no.
Bonus wrote:
> FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> And the GC is more powerful anyway, so can handle it
> all better.
>
> Ha Ha Ha.
What? It is.
> FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> And the GC is more powerful anyway, so can handle it
> all better.
>
> Ha Ha Ha.
What? It is.
Bonus wrote:
> FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> Bonus wrote:
> Still, no one has told me why Killer 7 is a worse game on PS2 than
> GC,
> other than it takes longer to load.
>
> That's reason enough, now hush.
>
> It's not, to be fair :-).
Yes, yes, ohyesyes it is.
It's true. And therefore a proper reason to why it's better on the GC.
You asked for one, you got one.
Now shoo!
> FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> Bonus wrote:
> Still, no one has told me why Killer 7 is a worse game on PS2 than
> GC,
> other than it takes longer to load.
>
> That's reason enough, now hush.
>
> It's not, to be fair :-).
Yes, yes, ohyesyes it is.
It's true. And therefore a proper reason to why it's better on the GC.
You asked for one, you got one.
Now shoo!
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> Bonus wrote:
> because I've actually programmed one adn seen the visual
> outputs of the analogue buttons :-).
>
> This will be your eventual downfall.
The fact that I've programmed one, or my fast typing ability in the dark? :-D.
> Bonus wrote:
> because I've actually programmed one adn seen the visual
> outputs of the analogue buttons :-).
>
> This will be your eventual downfall.
The fact that I've programmed one, or my fast typing ability in the dark? :-D.
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> And the GC is more powerful anyway, so can handle it
> all better.
Ha Ha Ha.
> And the GC is more powerful anyway, so can handle it
> all better.
Ha Ha Ha.
Bonus wrote:
because I've actually programmed one adn seen the visual
> outputs of the analogue buttons :-).
This will be your eventual downfall.
because I've actually programmed one adn seen the visual
> outputs of the analogue buttons :-).
This will be your eventual downfall.
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> Bonus wrote:
> Still, no one has told me why Killer 7 is a worse game on PS2 than
> GC,
> other than it takes longer to load.
>
> That's reason enough, now hush.
It's not, to be fair :-).
> Bonus wrote:
> Still, no one has told me why Killer 7 is a worse game on PS2 than
> GC,
> other than it takes longer to load.
>
> That's reason enough, now hush.
It's not, to be fair :-).
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> Yes, GC triggers are >>>than the PS2 ones.
> Mainly because you can actually tell when you've pushed them in all
> the way - which is mostly why they rock for FPSs, because omg!1 it's
> like a gun! - whereas with the PS2, anything that's pressure
> sensitive, you end up straining your fingers in half trying to get
> the most pressure on it.
Well no, it doesn't take much pressure at all to get them to max, I know that because I've actually programmed one adn seen the visual outputs of the analogue buttons :-).
> Yes, GC triggers are >>>than the PS2 ones.
> Mainly because you can actually tell when you've pushed them in all
> the way - which is mostly why they rock for FPSs, because omg!1 it's
> like a gun! - whereas with the PS2, anything that's pressure
> sensitive, you end up straining your fingers in half trying to get
> the most pressure on it.
Well no, it doesn't take much pressure at all to get them to max, I know that because I've actually programmed one adn seen the visual outputs of the analogue buttons :-).
gerrid wrote:
> Don't tell me you don't understand what I'm saying...
I'm not, but they don't click, which is what you said.
> Don't tell me you don't understand what I'm saying...
I'm not, but they don't click, which is what you said.
Page: