Viewing Thread:
"Are you annoyed"

is anyone who deems to be a PS2 owner annoyed by the fact that their beloved console doesnt have 4 controller ports to play multiplayer games.I am very annoyed that we have to pay 30 odd quid for a multitap for games like quake 3 revolution.Consoles that are out or comming out all have 4 ports,Dreamcast,N64,X BOX,Gamecube,they all have them.The N64 was the first the spur this revolution(i think) of 4 player heaven,the game that took that idea was the classic goldeneye.

I would like to know what you think on the matter,to pay for a multitap or just lump it,i mean if your serious about your gaming you should own one,it is a great party essential,so what do u think

But still no more of him means nothing good.

I believe it was Hideo Kojima who said this would be his last Metal Gear Solid, not Konami.

I don't see any reason why they couldn't bring out another sequel or two, except for the fact they may not be as good as the original MGS and MGS2 because Kojima himself wouldn't be working on it.

AS konami said a couple of times this will be the last for the PS2.

How about MGS3: Snakey Returns Online!

Then you could login online and choose either to be the great man himself, or a Genome Soldier, or Meryl, or just an accomplice.

Team stealth, cross fire, enemy engagement tactics, that would be a big seller, even if it wasn't developed by the same Konami team that is doing MGS2.

So maybe they'll bring out an online 'missions' pack like they did with the original MGS (except it wasn't online).

The thing is, I hardly ever have more than 2 friends round at 1 time, and when I do all we do is play SD2 on PSX with a multi tap.

All my PS2 games 1-2 player, so there's no point getting one at the moment.


But wouldn't a 4-player MGS2 game be amazing!!

I'm happy with 2 ports on any system.

The console manufacturers probably did research into this when producing their systems, maybe Sony discovered that their main userbase was a solo player who had only a few friends round now and again, so opted for the space saving double port system, whereas Nintendo discovered that their main user always had mates round after school so added the quadruple port option.

I'm one of the former group, so 2 ports suits me fine (in fact, I've had my DC now for 3 months and still get by with just the 1 controller, but then I like playing 1-player games, what can I say?)

I see where you are comming from but i would prefer 4 ports,i mean the reason for this is the slight chance that a console reproduces the multiplayer excellence that was Goldeneye.

Wilmaaaaa wrote:
> wookie if it doesnt bother you,surly you still would like the thirty
> odd quid sony are charging in your pocket


Oops, just noticed this - sorry for the delay!

No, because I don't think two ports make a great deal of difference to the cost of the machine - probably more like 30 pence than thirty quid!

The controller port issue is a bit a 'chicken and egg' situation. Are there only two ports because only a few games aupport more than two players, or are there few games for more than two players because there are only two ports?

Personally I'd go for the former option, because developers know that you *can* connect more than 2 controllers to a PlayStation if you want to, so there's no reason not to make multiplayer games.

dan how can you say that the ps2 is designed for 2 players,the only reason that maybe is because there is two potrs,if there was 4 there would be games to support 4 players.Look at games like quake 3 and unreal tournament,2 player games hey.

Basically as the PS2 was designed for 2 players, most of it's games will be designed for 2 players and while the owners won't miss it, they'll never get the likes of a 4 player Goldeneye, Smash Brothers or Mario Kart deathmatch which is a pity because they'd really like it!