The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
The Playstation 2 (PS2 for short) is the worlds most powerful games console, its 10 times as powerful as the original Playstation which means that the graphics and sound are simply amazing.
This machine truly takes you to the peak of interactive entertainment; it not only plays games but also has a built in DVD player, which allows you to watch DVD movies. The Playstation 2 is now destined to become even more popular than its predecessor, having sold a staggering 10 million units in only 5 months. This means simply that your investing in the future, every major developer is now producing games for the PS2 and already the PS2 has some great games released for it. Such as Zone of Enders (Z.O.E.), Timesplitters and TekkenTagTournament. But as they say the best is yet to come with GranTurismo3, MetalGearSolid 2, Silent Hill2, WWF Smackdown 3 and the Getaway sure to be big hits when they’re released later this year.
This machine truly takes you to the peak of interactive entertainment; it not only plays games but also has a built in DVD player, which allows you to watch DVD movies. The Playstation 2 is now destined to become even more popular than its predecessor, having sold a staggering 10 million units in only 5 months. This means simply that your investing in the future, every major developer is now producing games for the PS2 and already the PS2 has some great games released for it. Such as Zone of Enders (Z.O.E.), Timesplitters and TekkenTagTournament. But as they say the best is yet to come with GranTurismo3, MetalGearSolid 2, Silent Hill2, WWF Smackdown 3 and the Getaway sure to be big hits when they’re released later this year.
Page:
{:) I love the way Wookiee puts his argument foward.
Very calmly with lots of facts and figures.
And the last line sums it all up!!
I try and do that, but all those people on the N64 forum as so damn stubborn!!
I just end up shouting. LOL.
Anyway, SNIPER's argument is the worst.
SNIPER wrote:
< why did sony make gaming what it is today when they shouldn't of even entered it?"
LOL!! That has to be the most stupid comment I've heard in a long time.
Very calmly with lots of facts and figures.
And the last line sums it all up!!
I try and do that, but all those people on the N64 forum as so damn stubborn!!
I just end up shouting. LOL.
Anyway, SNIPER's argument is the worst.
SNIPER wrote:
< why did sony make gaming what it is today when they shouldn't of even entered it?"
LOL!! That has to be the most stupid comment I've heard in a long time.
I would agree with you Wookie.
So Pagey what makes what PC gamer say is a Hardcore gamer. If you posts the points we will post the answers to them to see if we are true "hardcore gamers".
Pagey do you like Nintendo, well if you do you should blame them for this whole mess of so called "Casual gamers" as they were the ones that got Sony to make a CD add on or something like that for the SNES. Just like the Mega Drive had the Mega CD. But Nintendo broke the agreement and Sony had this add on which they had made. Sony then though that they'll turn it into a console. If Nintendo didnt bring in Sony. They might not of brought out a PS1 or PS2 and filled the market with these "Casual Gamers".
So Pagey what makes what PC gamer say is a Hardcore gamer. If you posts the points we will post the answers to them to see if we are true "hardcore gamers".
Pagey do you like Nintendo, well if you do you should blame them for this whole mess of so called "Casual gamers" as they were the ones that got Sony to make a CD add on or something like that for the SNES. Just like the Mega Drive had the Mega CD. But Nintendo broke the agreement and Sony had this add on which they had made. Sony then though that they'll turn it into a console. If Nintendo didnt bring in Sony. They might not of brought out a PS1 or PS2 and filled the market with these "Casual Gamers".
> If you read magazines such as PC Gamer you will realise what a
> 'hardcore' gamer is. PC Gamer is against casual gamers as I am and
> they know that PSX ruined the games industry by filling it with
> casual gamers.
No, I want *your* definition of a 'hardcore' gamer - don't pass it off to a magazine.
> You people are all obviously casual gamers because
> you don't know what a hardcore gamer is. Adrian, so what if you've
> owned loads of consoles, that still doesn't make you a hardcore
> gamer. I don't care if you people don't like this whole hardcore
> gamer business. It is real, it is what gaming is.
You have still failed to tell us what a 'hardcore gamer' is, or what qualifies someone to be called that. If you are a 'hardcore' gamer, then you must know; please enlighten us.
Let's see... as I posted in a thread on the FoG forum...
I am almost 30 years old. I have been playing videogames since I was 8 - that's almost 22 years.
I have sometimes played games for 36 hours or more straight off, without a significant break. By any definition, I think that would put me in the bracket of 'hardcore gamer', would it not?
I have also on occasion gone a week or more without so much as looking at my console. Presumably that would make me a casual gamer?
Define, please.
> The original
> PlayStation hasn't helped the gaming industry. Sure, more people
> play games nowadays but most of these people are casual gamers.
> Developers now know that you can get away with making crap games and
> that is why there are so many of them. There wasn't half as many
> crap games before the PlayStation.
Rubbish. The PC has far more games released than the PlayStation, and only a handful of them are really worth getting.
Similarly, the VIC-20, C64, Spectrum, SNES, Megadrive, Amiga, Atari ST etc. ALL had a wealth of very poor games.
>What is wrong with so called 'casual gaming'?
>
>It is destroying what was good about gaming. Tons of
>triple-A games and a good competition between consoles. >With Sony dominating developers aren't encouraged to
>compete with each other making top games because they
>know that bloody casual gamers will buy any old crap.
More rubbish. Sony have dominated the market in terms of physical consoles, that's true. That in itself does not affect the quality of games. Most games are from 3rd-party developers, and what they produce isn't down to Sony in any way. Those developers will produce their software for whatever platform is available. The larger user-base provided by PlayStation means that they sell more games, bringing in more money, which *should* enable them to produce better quality products. If a 3rd-party developer insists on rushing out poor software, that is their responsibilty, not Sony's.
>Why else does 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?' sell?
Well, let's see... could it *possibly* be because it's the most popular quiz show on TV? I agree that WWTBAM is a poor game, but why? Because there's no point, as there's no money. However, the TV show is excellent. There's nothing wrong with the game on a console or PC either, as the format is identical; but the lack of cash makes it ultimately pointless. It's a tie-in with a popular TV show, and hence the videogame is popular too. Most TV/movie tie-ins are the same - they are big sellers, but usually poor games.
The WWTBAM board game also sold in huge numbers, but ultimately suffers the same problem. Presumably there's a forum somewhere with 'hardcore' board-game players having the same argument with 'casual' board-game players. :-)
> It may have put money in the
> games industry but the developers who have always made good hardcore
> games still do so and always will.
So there are some good 'hardcore' games on PlayStation then, as Sega are producing for PS2, and also converting their Saturn back-catalogue for PS1... or are Sega not a 'hardcore' games company?
>Wookie Monster, a hardcore gamer is not interested in all
>consoles. Why would someone who plays games like 'Counter
>Strike' all-night want to play 'Crash Team Racing'?
Or, presumably, the Mario Kart games, or Diddy Kong Racing, or any other cartoon-style racing game. Or, despite the similarities to CTR, are they 'hardcore' games simply because they're on a Nintendo system?
It's all a matter of personal taste. Personally I'd rather play Driver than Crazy Taxi, although essentially they're the same game.
I'm sorry, Pagey, but the arguments you've presented - whether your own, or inherited from PC magazines - are extremely flawed.
Looking over your posts on this topic as a whole, the only conclusion that I can draw is that you - and by the sound of it, PC Gamer magazine - are extremely bitter that Sony came along and basically made a better job of selling their hardware than anyone else had previously managed.
In fact, the statement that you like the X-box completely and irrevocably undermines your whole argument. On the one hand you are saying that you are against Sony's dominance of the market; on the other hand, you are throwing your weight behind the one company that could potentially do exactly the same things on a much larger scale.
I do not claim that Sony are some kind of game-world Gods, or that they deserve more glory and thanks than the likes of Sega and Nintendo, because they don't. Sega and Nintendo have a much longer history, and deserve all of the credit attributed to them.
However, Sony do deserve a lot of credit for expanding the videogames market and increasing revenues exponentially. If not for them, revenues would be lower for everyone, which may well have meant slower development; PS2, Dreamcast and GameCube may not have existed yet (due to limited funds), and Microsoft may not have had a console market to enter into.
Most of us are quite willing to accept that you prefer something other than the PlayStation consoles. After all, it's no skin off our collective nose, as we're happy. But the arguments/reasons you offer are simply not valid.
Incidentally Pagey, do you actually know the history of the PlayStation? Do you know *why* Sony entered the market, and who - technically - is to blame? Clue: It's not Sony!
> 'hardcore' gamer is. PC Gamer is against casual gamers as I am and
> they know that PSX ruined the games industry by filling it with
> casual gamers.
No, I want *your* definition of a 'hardcore' gamer - don't pass it off to a magazine.
> You people are all obviously casual gamers because
> you don't know what a hardcore gamer is. Adrian, so what if you've
> owned loads of consoles, that still doesn't make you a hardcore
> gamer. I don't care if you people don't like this whole hardcore
> gamer business. It is real, it is what gaming is.
You have still failed to tell us what a 'hardcore gamer' is, or what qualifies someone to be called that. If you are a 'hardcore' gamer, then you must know; please enlighten us.
Let's see... as I posted in a thread on the FoG forum...
I am almost 30 years old. I have been playing videogames since I was 8 - that's almost 22 years.
I have sometimes played games for 36 hours or more straight off, without a significant break. By any definition, I think that would put me in the bracket of 'hardcore gamer', would it not?
I have also on occasion gone a week or more without so much as looking at my console. Presumably that would make me a casual gamer?
Define, please.
> The original
> PlayStation hasn't helped the gaming industry. Sure, more people
> play games nowadays but most of these people are casual gamers.
> Developers now know that you can get away with making crap games and
> that is why there are so many of them. There wasn't half as many
> crap games before the PlayStation.
Rubbish. The PC has far more games released than the PlayStation, and only a handful of them are really worth getting.
Similarly, the VIC-20, C64, Spectrum, SNES, Megadrive, Amiga, Atari ST etc. ALL had a wealth of very poor games.
>What is wrong with so called 'casual gaming'?
>
>It is destroying what was good about gaming. Tons of
>triple-A games and a good competition between consoles. >With Sony dominating developers aren't encouraged to
>compete with each other making top games because they
>know that bloody casual gamers will buy any old crap.
More rubbish. Sony have dominated the market in terms of physical consoles, that's true. That in itself does not affect the quality of games. Most games are from 3rd-party developers, and what they produce isn't down to Sony in any way. Those developers will produce their software for whatever platform is available. The larger user-base provided by PlayStation means that they sell more games, bringing in more money, which *should* enable them to produce better quality products. If a 3rd-party developer insists on rushing out poor software, that is their responsibilty, not Sony's.
>Why else does 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?' sell?
Well, let's see... could it *possibly* be because it's the most popular quiz show on TV? I agree that WWTBAM is a poor game, but why? Because there's no point, as there's no money. However, the TV show is excellent. There's nothing wrong with the game on a console or PC either, as the format is identical; but the lack of cash makes it ultimately pointless. It's a tie-in with a popular TV show, and hence the videogame is popular too. Most TV/movie tie-ins are the same - they are big sellers, but usually poor games.
The WWTBAM board game also sold in huge numbers, but ultimately suffers the same problem. Presumably there's a forum somewhere with 'hardcore' board-game players having the same argument with 'casual' board-game players. :-)
> It may have put money in the
> games industry but the developers who have always made good hardcore
> games still do so and always will.
So there are some good 'hardcore' games on PlayStation then, as Sega are producing for PS2, and also converting their Saturn back-catalogue for PS1... or are Sega not a 'hardcore' games company?
>Wookie Monster, a hardcore gamer is not interested in all
>consoles. Why would someone who plays games like 'Counter
>Strike' all-night want to play 'Crash Team Racing'?
Or, presumably, the Mario Kart games, or Diddy Kong Racing, or any other cartoon-style racing game. Or, despite the similarities to CTR, are they 'hardcore' games simply because they're on a Nintendo system?
It's all a matter of personal taste. Personally I'd rather play Driver than Crazy Taxi, although essentially they're the same game.
I'm sorry, Pagey, but the arguments you've presented - whether your own, or inherited from PC magazines - are extremely flawed.
Looking over your posts on this topic as a whole, the only conclusion that I can draw is that you - and by the sound of it, PC Gamer magazine - are extremely bitter that Sony came along and basically made a better job of selling their hardware than anyone else had previously managed.
In fact, the statement that you like the X-box completely and irrevocably undermines your whole argument. On the one hand you are saying that you are against Sony's dominance of the market; on the other hand, you are throwing your weight behind the one company that could potentially do exactly the same things on a much larger scale.
I do not claim that Sony are some kind of game-world Gods, or that they deserve more glory and thanks than the likes of Sega and Nintendo, because they don't. Sega and Nintendo have a much longer history, and deserve all of the credit attributed to them.
However, Sony do deserve a lot of credit for expanding the videogames market and increasing revenues exponentially. If not for them, revenues would be lower for everyone, which may well have meant slower development; PS2, Dreamcast and GameCube may not have existed yet (due to limited funds), and Microsoft may not have had a console market to enter into.
Most of us are quite willing to accept that you prefer something other than the PlayStation consoles. After all, it's no skin off our collective nose, as we're happy. But the arguments/reasons you offer are simply not valid.
Incidentally Pagey, do you actually know the history of the PlayStation? Do you know *why* Sony entered the market, and who - technically - is to blame? Clue: It's not Sony!
My thoughts exactly Ant. If Sony never came along and brought along these so called "casual gamers" the industry could be dead, or may not be as big as it is today. With Microsoft coming in aswell it will certainly be strong competition and some great games. I think its a shame that Sega have pulled out of the hardware competition. But at least they are still going to be making some good games for all systems. When the X-Box and Gamecube get released competition will be strong and by then the PS2 should have most of its top class titles out.
Pagey wrote:
> Me, a casual gamer? I THINK NOT. I absolutely cannot stand casual
> gamers. I know what they are like and I AM NOT ONE OF THEM. I cannot
> believe how pathetic your definition of a casual gamer is. I AM NOT
> BIASED TOWARDS ONE CONSOLE. I like Dreamcast, PC, Xbox, Game Boy,
> N64 and Gamecube. I DO NOT like any Sony console because they
> started the casual gamer market and are therefore responsible for
> buggering up the gaming industry.
OH BO***CKS!!
Sony and the PlayStation MADE gaming into what it is today!!
Without the PSX, gaming would be no where near as good as it is today.
Also, the PSX actually gave Nintendo and Sega some competition.
Overall, without Sony, the gaming world would be NOTHING compared to what it is today.
> Me, a casual gamer? I THINK NOT. I absolutely cannot stand casual
> gamers. I know what they are like and I AM NOT ONE OF THEM. I cannot
> believe how pathetic your definition of a casual gamer is. I AM NOT
> BIASED TOWARDS ONE CONSOLE. I like Dreamcast, PC, Xbox, Game Boy,
> N64 and Gamecube. I DO NOT like any Sony console because they
> started the casual gamer market and are therefore responsible for
> buggering up the gaming industry.
OH BO***CKS!!
Sony and the PlayStation MADE gaming into what it is today!!
Without the PSX, gaming would be no where near as good as it is today.
Also, the PSX actually gave Nintendo and Sega some competition.
Overall, without Sony, the gaming world would be NOTHING compared to what it is today.
Pagey wrote:
> If you read magazines such as PC Gamer you will realise what a
> 'hardcore' gamer is. PC Gamer is against casual gamers as I am and
> they know that PSX ruined the games industry by filling it with
> casual gamers. You people are all obviously casual gamers because
> you don't know what a hardcore gamer is. Adrian, so what if you've
> owned loads of consoles, that still doesn't make you a hardcore
> gamer. I don't care if you people don't like this whole hardcore
> gamer business. It is real, it is what gaming is.
The original
> PlayStation hasn't helped the gaming industry. Sure, more people
> play games nowadays but most of these people are casual gamers.
> Developers now know that you can get away with making crap games and
> that is why there are so many of them. There wasn't half as many
> crap games before the PlayStation. It may have put money in the
> games industry but the developers who have always made good hardcore
> games still do so and always will.
I have been reading past posts you have written. It seems that you are a PC gamer, which is fine. But you keep saying that SONY messed up gaming by attracting casual gamers and releasing tons of crap games. But I remeber that there were tons of crap games for all systems that have been made. From the Amiga to Mastersystem, SNES to PC. Every system has had its fare share of bad games. You say that companys arent producing Triple A titles all the time, but there are many good games that come out each month. It takes a least a year to make a good game with out any bugs in it so there needs to be a few average and bad games to come out otherwise there will be only a selection of new games out each month. I have to aggree with you on "Who wants to be a millionaire" as I would never buy the game at all. With what you are saying is that you are against SONY for flooding the games industry with lots of crap games, which means your against crap games. You say your a Hardcore gamer but say iam a casual gamer even though I hate crap games just like you. Just becuase I own a PS2 doesnt mean iam a casual gamer. And you own a PC and think you are a hardcore gamer. I play games becuase I like them, I spend hours each week, well if I had my way I would like to be playing on games for the whole day and night but with my life I cant. I think that this disagreement between you and quite a few people on this board will never be resolved as you cant seem to see that console gamers can be what you say are hardcore gamers. I play on the games that I want which are all the best games out, no crap games. I play on all formats from DC to PSX and PS2 to PC. If you were to open your eyes you would see that many people on this list are hardcore gamers, as that is why we are on this list discussing everything about the console we own. Many people who own a PS2 also own different consoles and PC's so they can play on all the amazing games which get released.
> If you read magazines such as PC Gamer you will realise what a
> 'hardcore' gamer is. PC Gamer is against casual gamers as I am and
> they know that PSX ruined the games industry by filling it with
> casual gamers. You people are all obviously casual gamers because
> you don't know what a hardcore gamer is. Adrian, so what if you've
> owned loads of consoles, that still doesn't make you a hardcore
> gamer. I don't care if you people don't like this whole hardcore
> gamer business. It is real, it is what gaming is.
The original
> PlayStation hasn't helped the gaming industry. Sure, more people
> play games nowadays but most of these people are casual gamers.
> Developers now know that you can get away with making crap games and
> that is why there are so many of them. There wasn't half as many
> crap games before the PlayStation. It may have put money in the
> games industry but the developers who have always made good hardcore
> games still do so and always will.
I have been reading past posts you have written. It seems that you are a PC gamer, which is fine. But you keep saying that SONY messed up gaming by attracting casual gamers and releasing tons of crap games. But I remeber that there were tons of crap games for all systems that have been made. From the Amiga to Mastersystem, SNES to PC. Every system has had its fare share of bad games. You say that companys arent producing Triple A titles all the time, but there are many good games that come out each month. It takes a least a year to make a good game with out any bugs in it so there needs to be a few average and bad games to come out otherwise there will be only a selection of new games out each month. I have to aggree with you on "Who wants to be a millionaire" as I would never buy the game at all. With what you are saying is that you are against SONY for flooding the games industry with lots of crap games, which means your against crap games. You say your a Hardcore gamer but say iam a casual gamer even though I hate crap games just like you. Just becuase I own a PS2 doesnt mean iam a casual gamer. And you own a PC and think you are a hardcore gamer. I play games becuase I like them, I spend hours each week, well if I had my way I would like to be playing on games for the whole day and night but with my life I cant. I think that this disagreement between you and quite a few people on this board will never be resolved as you cant seem to see that console gamers can be what you say are hardcore gamers. I play on the games that I want which are all the best games out, no crap games. I play on all formats from DC to PSX and PS2 to PC. If you were to open your eyes you would see that many people on this list are hardcore gamers, as that is why we are on this list discussing everything about the console we own. Many people who own a PS2 also own different consoles and PC's so they can play on all the amazing games which get released.
Whats better?
Pagey I dont think iam a casual gamer. To me a casual gamer would be some one who walks into there local store and just looks around for any game. They havent read a review dont really know what its like they just need to get a game so they can spend 5 mintues playing on it before they go out. I read many reviews. With all the games I have ever owned I can honestly say that none of them have been crap. I chose the games I buy so that I can spend time playing them. When I buy a game I buy it to play on it for long periods of times. As you stated that casual gamers encourage crap games. I hate all the crap that is out there, I cant see how companys can release games which they can see cant compete with the top games. Actually thinking about it the PSX did encourage a lot of so called casual gamers, but so did other consoles. Also the PC has casual gamers for it as well. And many other consoles will have casual gamers. Video games have become very popular these days with everyone. Sony may have started it, but saying that people arent hardcore gamers is a but harsh as you dont really know a person. If you think iam a casual gamer then I dont really care as I play games for fun, I spend alot of time playing games, I only buy the best games that are out. Also I dont think that Sony are gods. They have just marketed there product well. As I said before the gaming industry is a industry for making money, there have been good a bad games for years well before Sony came along. And there will be bad games and good games each year, from which the company wants to make money from. The gaming industry is like the movie industry, there are good movies, bad movies,sequels and new movies that just wow people , but its all to make money.
Page: