Driv3r Gone Gold!
- Thread starter joule
- Start date
PS2 burn in hell? The PC is lucky it's even getting a port of the game, if it wasn't for consoles games like Driver wouldn't exist. Besides, despite the fact that the resolution would be better on my computer I'm still going to buy it for PS2, games like that are just better on consoles.
The game does look really amazing. I was playing back through Driver 2 and was amazed at how good that game is. The graphics are a little muddy (it was a Playstation 1 game), but the game is great. The physics are perfect and the cities are huge, Driver 3 is going to be even better. I just hope they don't stray too far from driving, I'm afraid adding on foot action to the game was a mistake. There's plenty of games which can do shooting much better than Driver 3 probably will, but there's no game that can do driving and chases as well.
The game does look really amazing. I was playing back through Driver 2 and was amazed at how good that game is. The graphics are a little muddy (it was a Playstation 1 game), but the game is great. The physics are perfect and the cities are huge, Driver 3 is going to be even better. I just hope they don't stray too far from driving, I'm afraid adding on foot action to the game was a mistake. There's plenty of games which can do shooting much better than Driver 3 probably will, but there's no game that can do driving and chases as well.
BabyHeadCrab
The Freeman
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 602
Neutrino said:
bu7 175 l337 sp33k
OCybrManO
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 4,780
- Reaction score
- 0
No game is automatically better because it is on a console (but FPS games are almost always worse because analog sticks suck for movement/aiming in that genre). The only thing consoles have over a PC are their special controllers. There are some decent controllers for the PC but if you like your PS2 or XBox controller (like me) you can get a $10-20 USB adapter for them and use them in your PC games. So if it controls the like console version, has more detailed textures, runs at a higher resolution, and people are probably going to try to mod it... you would still rather have it on the PS2?
The only reason I dislike the PS2 is because it is the weakest console but it has the largest market share from good marketing, fans of the original Playstation, and an earlier release than the competition (the poor Dreamcast got beat by a technically inferior product because of the first two). So, more game developers want to release for the PS2 than any other console... but their games are not be as good as they could have been on a more powerful console like the XBox. The allure of the almighty dollar is holding back the quality of games in the current generation of consoles. It will probably be the same way in the next generation as well if the PS3 can run PS2 games... even if it is the slowest of the bunch, again.
I want to see what Nintendo has up its sleeve. They say they will not make the same mistake (letting Sony beat them to the market by over a year) next time around. I just hope it doesn't sacrifice a lot of power to accomplish that.
Direwolf
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,186
- Reaction score
- 0
The games are just as good as they would be on the Xbox, unless graphics are all that matter. And consoles certainly have more going for them than just good controllers.
If it reviews well I'll certainly pick it up, I was a big fan of the first one. Was the first real step towards something linke GTA3.
If it reviews well I'll certainly pick it up, I was a big fan of the first one. Was the first real step towards something linke GTA3.
OCybrManO said:
Lot's of games are automatically better because they're on consoles. This includes racing games, adventure games, most RPGs, all fighting games, and certain kinds of action games. You say you can hook up a console controller to a PC, but you can also hook up a keyboard/mouse or special FPS controller to a console, so that's pretty much a mute point both ways. Also, in my experience PC games that use controllers don't control nearly as well as their console counterparts. I was never able to get the PS2's pressure sensitive buttons to have any effect either, the games (even ports) just don't support it. This game, much like GTA3/VC, will be more fun on consoles than PCs, despite somewhat inferior graphics.
I'm not biased though. If it turned out that Killzone would be released for PC a few months after the PS2 version I would definitely wait, because PC's are better for FPS games, just like consoles are better for driving games.
And as far as the PS2 issue goes, it's not holding anyone back. In all honesty there is not a large difference between all three consoles, the hard drive being the X-BOX's only distinguishing feature. The PS2 isn't holding games back, muti-platform games will always be inferior to exclusives. If they have to develop the game for all consoles then they can't incorporate any of the consoles advanced features. Just look at the X-BOX version of MGS2, it relies on PS2 features so much that they had to tone down the particle and weather effects heavily and it still doesn't have near the 60FPS of the PS2 version.
OCybrManO
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 4,780
- Reaction score
- 0
First, it's spelled "moot."
Using a console controller on the PC is much easier than a keyboard/mouse on a console (as long as you have a decent driver for it and the game has joystick support, but even FPS games have that) because hardly any games for a console support keyboard/mouse and using a mouse on the couch isn't the most comfortable way to play... so it's not a moot point. If you are having so many problems (maybe it's just with PS2 controllers) just buy a decent controller that was meant for the PC. They are cheap and offer the same functionality. Some of them are even made to look like PS2 controllers.
There's nothing you've said that makes the PC any worse at any type of game than a console. In fact, if it weren't for exclusive titles I wouldn't even own a console because the PC is the most versatile and the most powerful of all systems.
EDIT: The only advantage consoles have that I can think of (other than exclusive games) is split-screen play.
Using a console controller on the PC is much easier than a keyboard/mouse on a console (as long as you have a decent driver for it and the game has joystick support, but even FPS games have that) because hardly any games for a console support keyboard/mouse and using a mouse on the couch isn't the most comfortable way to play... so it's not a moot point. If you are having so many problems (maybe it's just with PS2 controllers) just buy a decent controller that was meant for the PC. They are cheap and offer the same functionality. Some of them are even made to look like PS2 controllers.
That's a bad choice on the part of the developer. They didn't optimize it for the XBox because they either didn't know how or they just didn't bother. How does that refute the fact that the PS2 is holding the graphical capabilities of games back? They made the game primarily for the oldest console, then they did a quick, cheap port to try to get more money. A horrible port of a mediocre game proves nothing in terms of performance. Look at practically every other multiplatform game. Oh, and as far as I know MGS2 for the PS2 doesn't support progressive scan (unlike every XBox game) so it's only running at 30fps. Feel free to correct me (by showing contrary information) if that is false.
As usual, it comes down to peripherals. If you have a decent analog controller the PC is at least equal. Any system with a steering wheel is great for driving games... but PC steering wheels are a bit more practical since you are already sitting at a desk (and I love racing games that support the more realistic force feedback capabilities of PC racing wheels).
There's nothing you've said that makes the PC any worse at any type of game than a console. In fact, if it weren't for exclusive titles I wouldn't even own a console because the PC is the most versatile and the most powerful of all systems.
EDIT: The only advantage consoles have that I can think of (other than exclusive games) is split-screen play.
BabyHeadCrab
The Freeman
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 602
il wait for reviews... I WANT HALF-LIFE 2!!!!!!!!!!
Using a console controller on the PC is much easier than a keyboard/mouse on a console (as long as you have a decent driver for it and the game has joystick support, but even FPS games have that) because hardly any games for a console support keyboard/mouse and using a mouse on the couch isn't the most comfortable way to play... so it's not a moot point. If you are having so many problems (maybe it's just with PS2 controllers) just buy a decent controller that was meant for the PC. They are cheap and offer the same functionality. Some of them are even made to look like PS2 controllers.
You're wrong about that. First of all it's quite easy to pull up a table and use a keyboard and mouse for games. Secondly you ignored my point about FPS specific controllers. If you use them, and they work for every game, then FPS games on consoles control relatively equal to a keyboard/mouse.
That's a bad choice on the part of the developer. They didn't optimize it for the XBox because they either didn't know how or they just didn't bother. How does that refute the fact that the PS2 is holding the graphical capabilities of games back? They made the game primarily for the oldest console, then they did a quick, cheap port to try to get more money. A horrible port of a mediocre game proves nothing in terms of performance. Look at practically every other multiplatform game. Oh, and as far as I know MGS2 for the PS2 doesn't support progressive scan (unlike every XBox game) so it's only running at 30fps. Feel free to correct me (by showing contrary information) if that is false.
Once again, you ignored the vast majority of my statement. The example of MGS2 was used to show that games fare better when developed with the specific console in mind. My argument was that multi-platform products of any sort will always suffer, because they can't take advantage of any systems strong points. Games like MGS3, GT4, and Killzone are some of the most visually impressive games on any console, and it's because the system has quality developers. It's stupid to say that the system with the highest quality games in almost all departments is the one holding the current generation back. Oh yeah, and the Substance version of MGS2 runs in progressive scan on both platforms, as will MGS3. And regardless of whether you liked the story or the gameplay, you can't say that the game was mediocre. It's the most polished and deep game I've ever played.
As usual, it comes down to peripherals. If you have a decent analog controller the PC is at least equal. Any system with a steering wheel is great for driving games... but PC steering wheels are a bit more practical since you are already sitting at a desk (and I love racing games that support the more realistic force feedback capabilities of PC racing wheels).
No, there is no substitute for a console controller playing a game specifically designed for that controller. PC controllers do not have pressure sensitive buttons, you have to go back to the old way of having one button for flooring it and one for a normal takeoff. Also, Driver is the type of game where you sit back on the couch and retry missions about 10 times before you win. It just plays better with a console. And as far as the slight degredation in graphics, I really don't care - I still play Driver 2.
There's nothing you've said that makes the PC any worse at any type of game than a console. In fact, if it weren't for exclusive titles I wouldn't even own a console because the PC is the most versatile and the most powerful of all systems.
The PC is the most versatile and powerful of all systems, everyone knows that. But it's not the best for certain types of games. When was the last time you and you're friends gathered aroung a 19'' monitor to play a game of Madden or Tekken? Or how about a platformer? I'm not dissing PC's, but they both have their place in the world.
You're wrong about that. First of all it's quite easy to pull up a table and use a keyboard and mouse for games. Secondly you ignored my point about FPS specific controllers. If you use them, and they work for every game, then FPS games on consoles control relatively equal to a keyboard/mouse.
That's a bad choice on the part of the developer. They didn't optimize it for the XBox because they either didn't know how or they just didn't bother. How does that refute the fact that the PS2 is holding the graphical capabilities of games back? They made the game primarily for the oldest console, then they did a quick, cheap port to try to get more money. A horrible port of a mediocre game proves nothing in terms of performance. Look at practically every other multiplatform game. Oh, and as far as I know MGS2 for the PS2 doesn't support progressive scan (unlike every XBox game) so it's only running at 30fps. Feel free to correct me (by showing contrary information) if that is false.
Once again, you ignored the vast majority of my statement. The example of MGS2 was used to show that games fare better when developed with the specific console in mind. My argument was that multi-platform products of any sort will always suffer, because they can't take advantage of any systems strong points. Games like MGS3, GT4, and Killzone are some of the most visually impressive games on any console, and it's because the system has quality developers. It's stupid to say that the system with the highest quality games in almost all departments is the one holding the current generation back. Oh yeah, and the Substance version of MGS2 runs in progressive scan on both platforms, as will MGS3. And regardless of whether you liked the story or the gameplay, you can't say that the game was mediocre. It's the most polished and deep game I've ever played.
As usual, it comes down to peripherals. If you have a decent analog controller the PC is at least equal. Any system with a steering wheel is great for driving games... but PC steering wheels are a bit more practical since you are already sitting at a desk (and I love racing games that support the more realistic force feedback capabilities of PC racing wheels).
No, there is no substitute for a console controller playing a game specifically designed for that controller. PC controllers do not have pressure sensitive buttons, you have to go back to the old way of having one button for flooring it and one for a normal takeoff. Also, Driver is the type of game where you sit back on the couch and retry missions about 10 times before you win. It just plays better with a console. And as far as the slight degredation in graphics, I really don't care - I still play Driver 2.
There's nothing you've said that makes the PC any worse at any type of game than a console. In fact, if it weren't for exclusive titles I wouldn't even own a console because the PC is the most versatile and the most powerful of all systems.
The PC is the most versatile and powerful of all systems, everyone knows that. But it's not the best for certain types of games. When was the last time you and you're friends gathered aroung a 19'' monitor to play a game of Madden or Tekken? Or how about a platformer? I'm not dissing PC's, but they both have their place in the world.
BabyHeadCrab
The Freeman
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 602
smwScott said:
that ^^ too lazy to read but right on bro
OCybrManO
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 4,780
- Reaction score
- 0
"FPS specific controllers" are garbage. I've tried several of them. Give examples if you know of some good ones. Also, you didn't bother to comment about the number of console games that support a keyboard and mouse.
With the way console game controls are developed the only way to get anything near mouse speed with a controller (for the games that don't allow the use of a mouse) is to crank up the sensitivity... but then you lose a lot of the precision. The benefit of the mouse for FPS games is that it has both speed and precision without sacrificing one for the other.
There was actually, at one time, a way for Dreamcast gamers to play against PC gamers in Quake 3 Arena:
To put it simply, the DC players had their asses handed to them even by mediocre PC players because of the difference in controls.
I was saying, in the beginning, that games designed from the start with the XBox in mind are graphically more impressive. You countered by saying that a shoddy port of a game proved that wrong. You are the one that brought up multiplatform games (specifically MGS2) to counter my original point (that the initial popularity of the PS2 is now actually holding game graphics behind what they could be)... and now you say they aren't relevant to the topic? My initial statement on this particular subject is a fact, not an opinion.
EDIT: The pseudo-fixed camera combined with the nasty controls, goofy voice acting, a level where you are a naked guy, and the animations didn't leave me with a good impression of that game. The story was ok... but I didn't like the actual game part.
Game developers go for the audience that gives them the most money. The PS2 had the biggest market share because it was released a year before the XBox, it was backwards-compatible with PS1 games (making it have a huge library of old games), and Sony had a good reputation in consumer electronics. Many gamers didn't want to spend the extra $200+ for an XBox (it didn't help that it was made by Microsoft and it was their first console) so they just stuck with their old PS2. Sales of the XBox were lackluster for this reason, pushing a large number of developers back to the PS2. The PS2 keeps getting more and more games because a lot of developers don't want to waste their efforts to make their games on the XBox even though it would allow them to do more with their game (primary goal = money). If developers only cared about making a more impressive game there would be no developers left on the PS2 because it is just not capable of the amount of detail in a well made XBox game, it comes with a hard drive, and it has excellent online multiplayer support. Besides, if most of the PS2 developers switched to the XBox the decreased profits would only be temporary, as a lot of the fans would switch over... but a lot of companies aren't willing to take that risk.
Of course you'll get more good games if you have a lot more developers making PS2 games. It's pure statistics. There are also a lot more shitty games for the PS2 than there are for the XBox. See, statistics work both ways. If there were an equal number of developers of equal skill on both systems there would be better games (in graphics and in the ability to use the hard drives for things not possible without an expensive addon to the PS2 that relatively few people will buy).
You're not looking at the right PC controllers if you think none of them have a pressure-sensitive way of applying throttle (one of the few things pressure-sensitive buttons help with). What games, other than racers, benefit greatly from that functionality and could not possibly be done well without it?
Honestly, what makes the couch easier to replay missions on than a computer chair? I'm confused. People play MMORPGs and CS for hours on end... so, apparently not everyone has the same problems you seem to have with chairs.
This is where the aforementioned versatility comes into play. Have you noticed that all of the major video cards since the GeForce 4's (including ATI's cards), and maybe earlier, have come with S-Video/composite video out so that you can put the game on a TV? Just get a little stereo headphone jack -> two RCA audio jack converter from Radioshack (or use your current PC sound system) and you're ready to go!
When was the last time I played Madden with my friends on my computer? I just played it with some friends a few days ago.
Tekken? There is a Tekken game for the PC? When did I miss this?
Platformers? I play tons of old platformers on emulators (I would play modern ones as well... if I knew of them) practically every day. I even play a few text-based games. See, I'm not a "graphics over gameplay" type of person... though, if I had the choice I would prefer to have the same modern games that I love to play but with better graphics. Wouldn't you?
What's your point? That developers don't make a lot of good games in those genres specifically for the PC? If so, you've got me there... but that doesn't mean it's not a good platform for those types of games (if you buy a decent controller it is a great platform for any genre). It just isn't seen as one because those games are few and far between.
a 1 year head start can "NOT" be made an excuse for the 5-to-1 ratio of consoles sales. the XBOX is barely even at 15 mill consoles but the Ps2 has roughly around 80 mill or more now.OCybrManO said:
aswell as your other excuses (i swear excuses was what you based your whole post around) of it being Microsofts "First" console. this again is flawed (pretty much like your whole arguement) considered the Ps1 was Sonys first console yet it beat the N64 from gaming giant Nintendo. the Ps2 also "technically" shipped with an HDD when it was first released in Japan but it took a while to be brought to PAL and US consumers, but stupid XBOX fanboys (like theres anyother kind LOL) didn't know this. go to your friend who owns a Ps2 and look at the back of his Ps2. see its a HDD Slot. i got my Ps2 in the first shipment to the US. and it has always had an HDD slot. Comapnies often make games for the Ps2 simple because Ps2's sale. and Ps2 games sale because of the mass majority of Ps2 owners. right now overall the Ps2 is the best console out. not matter who has the power advantage. it has the bigger library, and more AAA titles coming out in its last 2 years of its life. the Ps2 has alot of games that people like. not just one (cough:: Halo 2 ::cough) it has alot of great platformers. Jak 1/2/3, R&C 1/2/3. hack and slashers DMC1/now 3, Onimusha 3, and God Of War, also Drakengard. then it had pushed more GTA games then any other console, and now Sony and R* are in negotciations for renewing the contract. GTA3 sold more alone then the GTA double pack for XBox. now that isn't much of an insentive for R* to jump on the XBox band wagon now is it? like i said over-all the ps2 is the superior console. of course saying that is flame bait for the over all "the xbox has better graphics" i dont care much, keep your better graphics. keep your Doom 3, i'll stick with HL2. take your Halo 2, i got Killzone, MGS3, DMC3, GOW, GT4, and GTA:SA.
Direwolf
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,186
- Reaction score
- 0
My god this is one of the dumber arguments I've seen recently, if only because its about absolutely nothing.
The PS2 isn't holding anything back. Sorry for it having huge sales numbers and lots of developers.
PCs and consoles BOTH have their places, end of story. Sure you played Madden with a bunch of friends on your PC, but how many were in the room with you? Did you just plug a bunch of controllers in and hit the start button? I really doubt it. On the flip side theres not much helping console FPS's..they're almost impossible to do right (Metroid is the only one that pulls it off flawlessly that I can think of).
You're never going to be talking about how you owned your neighbor in that last match of Soul Calibur on your PC, nor about how you won your clan's Unreal match on your PS2.
The PS2 isn't holding anything back. Sorry for it having huge sales numbers and lots of developers.
PCs and consoles BOTH have their places, end of story. Sure you played Madden with a bunch of friends on your PC, but how many were in the room with you? Did you just plug a bunch of controllers in and hit the start button? I really doubt it. On the flip side theres not much helping console FPS's..they're almost impossible to do right (Metroid is the only one that pulls it off flawlessly that I can think of).
You're never going to be talking about how you owned your neighbor in that last match of Soul Calibur on your PC, nor about how you won your clan's Unreal match on your PS2.
CrazyHarij
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2003
- Messages
- 10,075
- Reaction score
- 1
Nice, that game will rock!
OCybrManO
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 4,780
- Reaction score
- 0
...A year is a long time in terms of technology... especially when there is fierce competition between multiple companies. You have to imagine how many people rushed out and bought a PS2 within that time. It was the sequel to the most popular system of the time... and the graphics were nothing less than incredible compared to the PS1. In that time PS2 sales were so amazingly high that, at one point, many stores ran out of them within hours. They were in such a high demand that people were selling them for several times their retail value (I remember seeing them peak at OVER $1000) on eBay. Are you telling me that the PS2 could not gain enough control (at that incredible rate of sales) of the console market to prevent the XBox from becoming popular?Pitbul said:
...It appears that we are in agreement even if you don't know it. You are saying that the XBox is more powerful and you have to pay extra for a HDD for the PS2, but more games are made for the PS2 and more people buy the PS2 because it has a larger library. That is exactly what I am saying. Sony established total control over the current console market before the competition even had a chance to retaliate. People didn't upgrade to the more powerful consoles because they didn't get enough support from developers... which was because the gamers didn't buy them. It's a vicious cycle. You need more games to get more gamers... but you need more gamers to get more games. If you establish a sizeable lead early on there is not much that can be done about it.Pitbul said:aswell as your other excuses (i swear excuses was what you based your whole post around) of it being Microsofts "First" console. this again is flawed (pretty much like your whole arguement) considered the Ps1 was Sonys first console yet it beat the N64 from gaming giant Nintendo. the Ps2 also "technically" shipped with an HDD when it was first released in Japan but it took a while to be brought to PAL and US consumers, but stupid XBOX fanboys (like theres anyother kind LOL) didn't know this. go to your friend who owns a Ps2 and look at the back of his Ps2. see its a HDD Slot. i got my Ps2 in the first shipment to the US. and it has always had an HDD slot. Comapnies often make games for the Ps2 simple because Ps2's sale. and Ps2 games sale because of the mass majority of Ps2 owners. right now overall the Ps2 is the best console out. not matter who has the power advantage. it has the bigger library, and more AAA titles coming out in its last 2 years of its life. the Ps2 has alot of games that people like. not just one (cough:: Halo 2 ::cough) it has alot of great platformers. Jak 1/2/3, R&C 1/2/3. hack and slashers DMC1/now 3, Onimusha 3, and God Of War, also Drakengard. then it had pushed more GTA games then any other console, and now Sony and R* are in negotciations for renewing the contract. GTA3 sold more alone then the GTA double pack for XBox. now that isn't much of an insentive for R* to jump on the XBox band wagon now is it? like i said over-all the ps2 is the superior console. of course saying that is flame bait for the over all "the xbox has better graphics" i dont care much, keep your better graphics. keep your Doom 3, i'll stick with HL2. take your Halo 2, i got Killzone, MGS3, DMC3, GOW, GT4, and GTA:SA.
On Sony's console history, the popularity of the PS1, and Microsoft's first console:
...Sony had been working with Nintendo on consoles at the time of the SNES. They had a disagreement later on and Sony split off on their own. So, technically the PS1 wasn't Sony's first involvement in the console gaming industry. Sony had also been making various other types of consumer electronics products for many years, so they had expertise in making hardware.
...Another factor in the PS1's success was Nintendo's lack of foresight. They were originally going to make the N64 use CD's instead of cartridges, but they decided to use the older "tried and true" technology because they didn't expect to need the extra storage and load times were faster. What did that do? Well, cartidges were more expensive to manufacture (so, game prices were higher) and the small amount of storage ended up being very limiting to the graphical capabilities of the system (the N64 had faster hardware than the PS1 but the CD-ROM format had roughly 20 times the storage of Nintendo's cartridge system).
...In addition to overcoming the astonishing popularity of the PS2, Microsoft had to convince the gaming community that they were more than just a software developer. Then there are the people that hate Microsoft so much that they will never buy one of their products no matter how good it is... out of principle. Microsoft fought a losing battle in this round to establish themselves as a competitor in game consoles and to put a dent in Sony's market share. That's why they didn't use any fancy or new technology with the XBox. It was just a PC with a custom video card from nVidia running an extremely stripped-down OS. Their next console is going to be much less like a PC in a console shell. I can't wait to see what all of the Big 3 come out with over the next couple of years.
NOTE: I have a PS2, GC, and an Xbox... but I still think the PS2 is holding back the XBox's potential. It's not some random XBox fanboy jealousy.
Sui
Tank
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2004
- Messages
- 5,998
- Reaction score
- 3
Direwolf said:
^^^my thoughts exactly.
peace!!!
Driver 1 was great, but i felt Driver 2 was just a bit of a rip off of GTA... but it was 3D, so it was still great. Im not sure if i will get it though, im not into racing games (even if they are damn kewl).
"FPS specific controllers" are garbage. I've tried several of them. Give examples if you know of some good ones. Also, you didn't bother to comment about the number of console games that support a keyboard and mouse.
I personally don't use FPS controllers because I have no problem using the controller, it works fine, if slightly worse than a keyboard/mouse. This isn't a problem as long as the game is balanced to compensate for it. And for the record most high profile FPS games on PS2 support keyboard/mouse, although I never bother to hook them up.
To put it simply, the DC players had their asses handed to them even by mediocre PC players because of the difference in controls.
Did I ever say that console controllers are better than a keyboard/mouse for FPS games? That's not even mentioning that the DC has one of the worst controllers I've ever held. If PC players played console players in a racing game (heh, like Driver 3), then they would get their asses kicked as well - because 90% of them will be using a keyboard/mouse.
I was saying, in the beginning, that games designed from the start with the XBox in mind are graphically more impressive. You countered by saying that a shoddy port of a game proved that wrong. You are the one that brought up multiplatform games (specifically MGS2) to counter my original point (that the initial popularity of the PS2 is now actually holding game graphics behind what they could be)... and now you say they aren't relevant to the topic? My initial statement on this particular subject is a fact, not an opinion.
First of all, games designed from scratch for the X-BOX are not always more impressive. You enjoy picking specific points out of my arguments rather than the big picture. I stated that some of the most visually impressive games on consoles are available on PS2, many of them more impressive than X-BOX titles which are considered to be among the best on the system. The PS2 is not holding anyone back, even X-BOX exclusives like Halo 1/2 don't use the hard drive as a necessity.
The pseudo-fixed camera combined with the nasty controls, goofy voice acting, a level where you are a naked guy, and the animations didn't leave me with a good impression of that game. The story was ok... but I didn't like the actual game part.
MGS2 is my personal favorite game, especially the gameplay. If you don't like it, whatever, not gonna get sidetracked on that.
Game developers go for the audience that gives them the most money. The PS2 had the biggest market share because it was released a year before the XBox, it was backwards-compatible with PS1 games (making it have a huge library of old games), and Sony had a good reputation in consumer electronics. Many gamers didn't want to spend the extra $200+ for an XBox (it didn't help that it was made by Microsoft and it was their first console) so they just stuck with their old PS2. Sales of the XBox were lackluster for this reason, pushing a large number of developers back to the PS2. The PS2 keeps getting more and more games because a lot of developers don't want to waste their efforts to make their games on the XBox even though it would allow them to do more with their game (primary goal = money). If developers only cared about making a more impressive game there would be no developers left on the PS2 because it is just not capable of the amount of detail in a well made XBox game, it comes with a hard drive, and it has excellent online multiplayer support. Besides, if most of the PS2 developers switched to the XBox the decreased profits would only be temporary, as a lot of the fans would switch over... but a lot of companies aren't willing to take that risk.
There's a reason more people own PS2's, and it's not because of a 1 year headstart. Recently the X-BOX outsold the PS2 for a single month, this was the first time in both consoles existence. The PS2 is an older console that still sells better than the other two. The reason for this is the sheer amount of quality products on the console, and the quality of the console itself. MS shipped the X-BOX with a piece of shit controller that you had to later on replace with one that was halfway decent. You had to buy an addon to get the DVD player to function. You have to pay a monthly fee for online service similar to that of the PS2's (but with less players). All this for a console with worse games ... but wait, it plays music and the average game is slightly prettier than its PS2 counterpart.
Of course you'll get more good games if you have a lot more developers making PS2 games. It's pure statistics. There are also a lot more shitty games for the PS2 than there are for the XBox. See, statistics work both ways. If there were an equal number of developers of equal skill on both systems there would be better games (in graphics and in the ability to use the hard drives for things not possible without an expensive addon to the PS2 that relatively few people will buy).
The statistics don't work both ways. Who cares if there's a lot of bad games? That doesn't hurt me at all. What helps me is the large variety of great exclusives the system has, the only good games on X-BOX are PC ports.
You're not looking at the right PC controllers if you think none of them have a pressure-sensitive way of applying throttle (one of the few things pressure-sensitive buttons help with). What games, other than racers, benefit greatly from that functionality and could not possibly be done well without it?
MGS2/MGS3 use this a lot, the PC version was a pain in the ass (so was Twin Snakes because of the Gamecubes lack of pressure sensitivity) because of this. Plenty of fighting, flying, racing, platform, and many action games use this feature. PC controllers are not as good as console controllers, especially seeing as console games are designed for the controllers.
Honestly, what makes the couch easier to replay missions on than a computer chair? I'm confused. People play MMORPGs and CS for hours on end... so, apparently not everyone has the same problems you seem to have with chairs.
I'm not one of those people that sit in the chair for hours, sorry. Many people consider the Driver series to be extremely frustrating, I enjoy the challenge. However, I would not enjoy it as much hunched over a monitor constantly retrying the same mission.
This is where the aforementioned versatility comes into play. Have you noticed that all of the major video cards since the GeForce 4's (including ATI's cards), and maybe earlier, have come with S-Video/composite video out so that you can put the game on a TV? Just get a little stereo headphone jack -> two RCA audio jack converter from Radioshack (or use your current PC sound system) and you're ready to go! When was the last time I played Madden with my friends on my computer? I just played it with some friends a few days ago. Tekken? There is a Tekken game for the PC? When did I miss this?
Yeah, you could go through all that, or you could stick the disc in a console and start playing. Also, we can lay back on a couch and play the game together, not on the floor because of how short the PC controllers chords are. Judging from your previous arguments I'm guessing you're just gonna say "buy an extension for it" but thats just stupid. All games that you play with mutiple people are better on consoles, this is why Timesplitters 2 (an FPS game) would be much better on consoles than PC.
Platformers? I play tons of old platformers on emulators (I would play modern ones as well... if I knew of them) practically every day. I even play a few text-based games. See, I'm not a "graphics over gameplay" type of person... though, if I had the choice I would prefer to have the same modern games that I love to play but with better graphics. Wouldn't you?
Would I like games to have better graphics? Sure. But I wouldn't want to lose functionality or control for it. Tell me this, if the PC is such a platform that can do every type of game better than consoles, why don't companies make every type of game for PC's?
I personally don't use FPS controllers because I have no problem using the controller, it works fine, if slightly worse than a keyboard/mouse. This isn't a problem as long as the game is balanced to compensate for it. And for the record most high profile FPS games on PS2 support keyboard/mouse, although I never bother to hook them up.
To put it simply, the DC players had their asses handed to them even by mediocre PC players because of the difference in controls.
Did I ever say that console controllers are better than a keyboard/mouse for FPS games? That's not even mentioning that the DC has one of the worst controllers I've ever held. If PC players played console players in a racing game (heh, like Driver 3), then they would get their asses kicked as well - because 90% of them will be using a keyboard/mouse.
I was saying, in the beginning, that games designed from the start with the XBox in mind are graphically more impressive. You countered by saying that a shoddy port of a game proved that wrong. You are the one that brought up multiplatform games (specifically MGS2) to counter my original point (that the initial popularity of the PS2 is now actually holding game graphics behind what they could be)... and now you say they aren't relevant to the topic? My initial statement on this particular subject is a fact, not an opinion.
First of all, games designed from scratch for the X-BOX are not always more impressive. You enjoy picking specific points out of my arguments rather than the big picture. I stated that some of the most visually impressive games on consoles are available on PS2, many of them more impressive than X-BOX titles which are considered to be among the best on the system. The PS2 is not holding anyone back, even X-BOX exclusives like Halo 1/2 don't use the hard drive as a necessity.
The pseudo-fixed camera combined with the nasty controls, goofy voice acting, a level where you are a naked guy, and the animations didn't leave me with a good impression of that game. The story was ok... but I didn't like the actual game part.
MGS2 is my personal favorite game, especially the gameplay. If you don't like it, whatever, not gonna get sidetracked on that.
Game developers go for the audience that gives them the most money. The PS2 had the biggest market share because it was released a year before the XBox, it was backwards-compatible with PS1 games (making it have a huge library of old games), and Sony had a good reputation in consumer electronics. Many gamers didn't want to spend the extra $200+ for an XBox (it didn't help that it was made by Microsoft and it was their first console) so they just stuck with their old PS2. Sales of the XBox were lackluster for this reason, pushing a large number of developers back to the PS2. The PS2 keeps getting more and more games because a lot of developers don't want to waste their efforts to make their games on the XBox even though it would allow them to do more with their game (primary goal = money). If developers only cared about making a more impressive game there would be no developers left on the PS2 because it is just not capable of the amount of detail in a well made XBox game, it comes with a hard drive, and it has excellent online multiplayer support. Besides, if most of the PS2 developers switched to the XBox the decreased profits would only be temporary, as a lot of the fans would switch over... but a lot of companies aren't willing to take that risk.
There's a reason more people own PS2's, and it's not because of a 1 year headstart. Recently the X-BOX outsold the PS2 for a single month, this was the first time in both consoles existence. The PS2 is an older console that still sells better than the other two. The reason for this is the sheer amount of quality products on the console, and the quality of the console itself. MS shipped the X-BOX with a piece of shit controller that you had to later on replace with one that was halfway decent. You had to buy an addon to get the DVD player to function. You have to pay a monthly fee for online service similar to that of the PS2's (but with less players). All this for a console with worse games ... but wait, it plays music and the average game is slightly prettier than its PS2 counterpart.
Of course you'll get more good games if you have a lot more developers making PS2 games. It's pure statistics. There are also a lot more shitty games for the PS2 than there are for the XBox. See, statistics work both ways. If there were an equal number of developers of equal skill on both systems there would be better games (in graphics and in the ability to use the hard drives for things not possible without an expensive addon to the PS2 that relatively few people will buy).
The statistics don't work both ways. Who cares if there's a lot of bad games? That doesn't hurt me at all. What helps me is the large variety of great exclusives the system has, the only good games on X-BOX are PC ports.
You're not looking at the right PC controllers if you think none of them have a pressure-sensitive way of applying throttle (one of the few things pressure-sensitive buttons help with). What games, other than racers, benefit greatly from that functionality and could not possibly be done well without it?
MGS2/MGS3 use this a lot, the PC version was a pain in the ass (so was Twin Snakes because of the Gamecubes lack of pressure sensitivity) because of this. Plenty of fighting, flying, racing, platform, and many action games use this feature. PC controllers are not as good as console controllers, especially seeing as console games are designed for the controllers.
Honestly, what makes the couch easier to replay missions on than a computer chair? I'm confused. People play MMORPGs and CS for hours on end... so, apparently not everyone has the same problems you seem to have with chairs.
I'm not one of those people that sit in the chair for hours, sorry. Many people consider the Driver series to be extremely frustrating, I enjoy the challenge. However, I would not enjoy it as much hunched over a monitor constantly retrying the same mission.
This is where the aforementioned versatility comes into play. Have you noticed that all of the major video cards since the GeForce 4's (including ATI's cards), and maybe earlier, have come with S-Video/composite video out so that you can put the game on a TV? Just get a little stereo headphone jack -> two RCA audio jack converter from Radioshack (or use your current PC sound system) and you're ready to go! When was the last time I played Madden with my friends on my computer? I just played it with some friends a few days ago. Tekken? There is a Tekken game for the PC? When did I miss this?
Yeah, you could go through all that, or you could stick the disc in a console and start playing. Also, we can lay back on a couch and play the game together, not on the floor because of how short the PC controllers chords are. Judging from your previous arguments I'm guessing you're just gonna say "buy an extension for it" but thats just stupid. All games that you play with mutiple people are better on consoles, this is why Timesplitters 2 (an FPS game) would be much better on consoles than PC.
Platformers? I play tons of old platformers on emulators (I would play modern ones as well... if I knew of them) practically every day. I even play a few text-based games. See, I'm not a "graphics over gameplay" type of person... though, if I had the choice I would prefer to have the same modern games that I love to play but with better graphics. Wouldn't you?
Would I like games to have better graphics? Sure. But I wouldn't want to lose functionality or control for it. Tell me this, if the PC is such a platform that can do every type of game better than consoles, why don't companies make every type of game for PC's?
AmishSlayer
Tank
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 5,898
- Reaction score
- 3
Reading IGN's hands on stuff...I'm not sure if I'm gonna get Driv3r...I just might rent it.
Farrowlesparrow
Tank
- Joined
- May 24, 2003
- Messages
- 1,901
- Reaction score
- 1
Cleary too much thought going into that little flame war.
Its not something that you can categorise, but when you play certain games on the console its much more fun. Playing multiplayer ona Pc is great, and i wouldnt want console to replace it but there is nothing like pulling out the ole PS2, shoving in Teken and...ahem...banging away.
Its not something that you can categorise, but when you play certain games on the console its much more fun. Playing multiplayer ona Pc is great, and i wouldnt want console to replace it but there is nothing like pulling out the ole PS2, shoving in Teken and...ahem...banging away.
OCybrManO
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 4,780
- Reaction score
- 0
That's simple. The number of hardcore gamers that buy great computers and all of the extra equipment needed (mostly controllers) doesn't equal the number of people willing to pay $150 for a PS2/XBox or $100 for a GameCube. The only game genres that survive on PCs are the ones that consoles really have trouble with because hardcore PC gamers are a smaller audience. It comes back to market share and profit again.
... though, if you target the game for PC hardware that is well behind the top of the line (maybe GeForce 3 or 4) you will get a much larger possible audience than games like Doom 3 and HL2... but, of course, the game won't be as impressive graphically.
