PSP or the DS?

[Gray Fox]

Alright, name some games. I'll start: Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Mario 64, Banjo Kazooie, Goldeneye 64, Perfect Dark...

That has to do with on anothers taste, but my point was tha tevery game that was made for the n64 could have been made for the psx, but not every game that was made for the psx could have been made for the n64 because of the lack of memory on the cartriges and the fact that they where expensive like hell. And like I said that has to do with taste about which games you liekd more I have more psx games in my top games of all time then n64

The idea was that you shouldn't be using the analog stick and control stick at the same time. And to me, the PS2/PSX control is simply terrible. You have to stretch your thumb way over to reach the analog sticks - the control pad and sticks should be reversed.

Hmm, on the psx controller you have 14 easly reachable buttons not counting the two analog sticks which could be also pressed and where from higher quality and more easly to control, and you had built in vibration.

On the n64 pad, you had 15 buttons which you could not reach easly including the left shoulder button(if there was one, I can't remember)
(BTW I counted every direction on the D-pad as one button, and the analog stick as one button also even though the psx analogs could also be pressed and that would count them as 2 more buttons bringing the total to 18)

Now that's just a cop-out. Nintendo could have introduced the CD, but they didn't, for lack of need for a memory card, increased durability, and anti-piracy. The GC uses Cds, but only because cartriges just won't cut it anymore - they were fine for the N64.

At the cost of a lot of memory, and good price, and the ability to play cd's, thats not a really a good tradeoff for most consumers.

They did innovate with the connectivity. But really, in a contest on innovation, there's no discussion here.

The gbc had connectivity to. Plus you can't say that nintendo innovates after the gba thing. The only thing that had been imporved uppon was the fact that that it had shoulder buttons and little better graphics, it didn't even give developers the chance to develope nev types of games and that is why old games were rerelease, just imagine if the ps2 could only play psx games, you would be all over them. And the fact that nintedno only brings mario games every damn time on a new format and doesn't creat new characters just shows how "innovative" they are. If there was no sony we would be still playing games with no voice in the games and the console buisness would still be small mainly dominated by children games. Nintedno had the a lot of chance to innovate but what did they do, they just appleid the same formula in the snes and n64 of bringin the same kinda gameplay and the same kinda character with slightly better graphics, the pxs alllowed the console games to mature.

You have a point - one of the few reasonable points you've made.

I have a lot of points, it is only that you nintedo fanbys have the canny ability to filter out most good points, just like you overlook a lot of things nintedno does while at the same time critisizing sony of doing the same, or not minding when Nintedno does the same.

We're treading into opinion territory here, and that's OK.

We were trading in it a long time ago, and some of it is not opinion, like this:

Besides like I said for sports games and race games it doesn't matter if they are orgiinal as long as they are good, and better harware helps for sports games, not a touchscreen.

That is a fact, and that allone assures sony a large share of the market( unfortunatly)

 

[Warbie]

but my point was tha tevery game that was made for the n64 could have been made for the psx

That's just not true. Zelda, Golden Eye, Mario 64 etc wouldn't have worked on the PS. First of all, the pads were not up to the job (try playing Mario 64 or Golden Eye on an emulator using a dual shock - you'll soon see) Secondly, the n64 was great at creating solid and believable gameworlds that had real 'weight' that you could experience with virtually no loading times. The PS had grainy gfx and didn't feel nearly as solid in comparison.

Remember that the PS pad had no analogue sticks, or rumble. The dual shock came out later, as an accessory (it was not the PS pad .... which makes the world of difference.)

All of the great N64 games used analogue movement amazingly well - I can't think of one PS game that did (largely because few games were designed with analogue in mind, as it wasn't the standard pad) The dual shock came out, and things improved a little. Unfortunately, both analogue sticks have a considerable dead zone, making it impossible for precise control (something which still lives on in the current ps2 versions, and also something you repeatedly ignore when comparing pads) This alone is a big draw back.

You may have access to a few more buttons with the dual shock, which is good. However, regardless of how you hold it, you always have quick and easy access to 8 buttons on the N64 pad (not including DPad or start buttons), which is easily enough. It's certainly more comfortable. (having a 'trigger' button is also fantastic - and one of the reasons, imo, why Golden Eye is such a top experience)

When comparing joypads for both machines it's unfair to match the dual shock to the N64 pad. Not that this really matters, seeing as both pads are inferior.

The only thing that had been imporved uppon was the fact that that it had shoulder buttons and little better graphics

This is very common place in the world of consoles .... better gfx, new and minor features - look at the PS2 This is certainly not a valid criticism. (unless you think 'better gfx' is innovation. Which, judging from your posts, i'm starting to think you do)

And the fact that nintedno only brings mario games every damn time on a new format and doesn't creat new characters just shows how "innovative" they are.

Are you seriously arguing that Nintendo don't innovate? (look at gaming over the few years - who has done more? (in terms of hardware and softare) Look at gaming in the present day - what has innovated as much as the DS? Nobody and nothing )

Sure, they bring out plenty of (good) Mario titles. They also make many other great games (Metroid, Zelda) and produce top hardware.

If there was no sony we would be still playing games with no voice in the games and the console buisness would still be small mainly dominated by children games.

What rubbish :/ (I don't need to back that up - it is obvioulsy rubbish)

Nintedno had the a lot of chance to innovate but what did they do

They brought out Mario 64 and Zelda OoT. Both completely revolutionising the way we think about and control/play 3d games - so much so that no other title since has been able to compete.

Why do you think Nintendo are the most respected devs in the business? (it's because of games like this) You can't belittle the impact games like this have had on the industry.

the pxs alllowed the console games to mature.

No, they took gaming to the masses - and made it 'cool' (in an adolescent kinda way)

I have a lot of points, it is only that you nintedo fanbys have the canny ability to filter out most good points, just like you overlook a lot of things nintedno does while at the same time critisizing sony of doing the same, or not minding when Nintedno does the same.

Something you are very guilty of. I've addressed everything you've brought up. When I point out the areas that Nintendo have innovated and you ignore them every time. (let's try again - DPad, shoulder buttons, analogue, rumble, 4 ports as standard, connectivity between consoles and, of course, the DS - which is hugely innovative) Imagine the PS2 pad without the areas that Nintendo has innovated - it'd have no shoulder buttons, analogue sticks, rumble or DPad. It's almost fair to say that Nintendo innovated the joypad fullstop.

This is before we even mention the hardware and massive volume of fantastic games they've made over the last decade (and more)


Much of what you give sony credit for was already appearing on pcs and the saturn (cds as media, voice acting, fmv etc). They may have done it better, especially in terms of marketing, but they don't innovate (except for the Eye Toy )

I enjoy Sony consoles (and have owned them all) Some of the greatest games around have appeared on them (Ico \o/) I'm not a Nintedno fanboy either - I just recognise what they have achieved.

 

[Vigilante]

Jeez, you really can't compare the DS and PSP. It's like comparing an n64 with a ps2.

If I had to choose, DS.

 

[Gray Fox]

By Warbie:

That's just not true. Zelda, Golden Eye, Mario 64 etc wouldn't have worked on the PS. First of all, the pads were not up to the job (try playing Mario 64 or Golden Eye on an emulator using a dual shock - you'll soon see) Secondly, the n64 was great at creating solid and believable gameworlds that had real 'weight' that you could experience with virtually no loading times. The PS had grainy gfx and didn't feel nearly as solid in comparison.

Nah the ps could handle way more polygons, thats why you could create rich and deatailed wordls, the n64 was only good for cartoonlike character like mario, everything looked kind like when you have bad vision and don't wear glasses, And games like Crash team racing and soul reaver could have never looked as beautiful as on the psx, but I do agree the graphics are very opinion orientated, soem don't like the the fact that you can see polygons on the psx and some like me don't like the lack of detail on the n64. And games like goldeneye and zelda could have been made easly for the psx, I did infact play those games on an emu with a controller that looked like the ps and it was great, the ps controller was may more suited for many different games than the n64 pad.

When comparing joypads for both machines it's unfair to match the dual shock to the N64 pad. Not that this really matters, seeing as both pads are inferior.

Ok then, I'm sorry it's just when I bought my psx the dual shock was standard, but ok, I still like the psx better. But tell me if the design of the n64 is better then why did nintendo chose to make the gc controller much more simmilar to the one of the psx, why didn't they stick with there controller designed for futur geneticly enhanced people with 3 hands.

This is very common place in the world of consoles .... better gfx, new and minor features - look at the PS2 This is certainly not a valid criticism. (unless you think 'better gfx' is innovation. Which, judging from your posts, i'm starting to think you do)

I don't, but at least the ps2 was that much more powerfull that a lot of devs could do soem much more with it and innovate, while the gba wasn't that much more powerfull so the only choice they had was to rerelease old games for it. How can you not find that skandalous. What if they only rereleased old n64 games on the gc would also not mind that, and call it innovative cause they where the first company to be actually stpid enough to do that The gba is not inovative and way overpriced, common that thing costs more than the gc and the games cost as much as pc games, that is rediculus. 50,- for the gba and 15 per game is reasonable.

Are you seriously arguing that Nintendo don't innovate? (look at gaming over the few years - who has done more? (in terms of hardware and softare) Look at gaming in the present day - what has innovated as much as the DS? Nobody and nothing )

Sony, they brough the totally analog pad, and eyetoy, what did nintendo do, it stuck to it's roots. The only innnovation with the gc was was that it was incredibly cheap if you can call that innovation.

Sure, they bring out plenty of (good) Mario titles. They also make many other great games (Metroid, Zelda) and produce top hardware.

Precisly, mario, metroid, zelda, thats it, you can't name any other good titles than that, it's always mario, metroid, zelda, the same games that came fro nes, snes and n64, The other grate games were made by RARE and they don't count as nintendo.

What rubbish :/ (I don't need to back that up - it is obvioulsy rubbish)

Why, look at most of nintendo fanbase and their games, has mario ganed the ability to speak, their games have not changed much they have the same feel and the same gameplay, no innovations in story telling. Do you think that the story in zelda is seriously better presented than in MGS or ff games. The n64 games looked like 2d games that were by accidant in 3d, they could have easly been doen in 2d, While the ps games reallly looked like a step ahead in the gameply departement, the story departement, they were way more professional, looked like made by real professionals, the n64 games look liek something made by 3 people, liek in the old days.

They brought out Mario 64 and Zelda OoT. Both completely revolutionising the way we think about and control/play 3d games - so much so that no other title since has been able to compete.

Yes there have, and it is true that nintendo did with mario(but zelda was just good, nothing revolutionary, it had the same basic gameply as the old 2d zelda, nothing revolutionary), but they stayed with that old formula and didn't innovate, their games look presentation wise like the old nes games.

Why do you think Nintendo are the most respected devs in the business? (it's because of games like this) You can't belittle the impact games like this have had on the industry.

They are not, in fact many have the same critisizm as I do, if they were that good they would still be the biggest.

No, they took gaming to the masses - and made it 'cool' (in an adolescent kinda way)

They did make them more mature, like I said before the games on the n64 were in 3d maybe but they felt, sounded and were presented just like on the older consoles, The psx games looked like they were made by professionals, why the hell do you think in gods name than only when the psx came that the masses accepted the consoles, because the games didn't look like kiddy games anymore they were on par with hollywood movies presentation wise, they looked like something new and cool. It wasn't all mario, zelda metroid, donky kong like on the nes, snes, n64.

Something you are very guilty of. I've addressed everything you've brought up. When I point out the areas that Nintendo have innovated and you ignore them every time. (let's try again - DPad, shoulder buttons, analogue, rumble, 4 ports as standard, connectivity between consoles and, of course, the DS - which is hugely innovative) Imagine the PS2 pad without the areas that Nintendo has innovated - it'd have no shoulder buttons, analogue sticks, rumble or DPad. It's almost fair to say that Nintendo innovated the joypad fullstop.

That doesn't really count becasue sony weren't players in the console market when those innovations were made so you can't blame sony for not innovating then, but once they did come on the market they innovated more than nintendo, while nintendo stubbrnly remaind whit it's proven formula of mario this mario that, and besides all those thing where allready created before nintedno did them, and besides the real innovation of the psx was games wise, like i said nintendo stuck ith it's old looks & gameplay formula while on the psx new kinda games emerged, and besides bringing true 3d to games is a much bigger innovation than all those put together that you listed( and I know there where some 3d games on the saturn but that wasn't real 3d, just like f-zero on the snes wasn't real 3d)

This is before we even mention the hardware and massive volume of fantastic games they've made over the last decade (and more)

The NES games were good, everything after that was though good and in some cases truly brilliant pretty much the same, same formula.

I enjoy Sony consoles (and have owned them all) Some of the greatest games around have appeared on them (Ico \o/) I'm not a Nintedno fanboy either - I just recognise what they have achieved.

I only had the psx, the rest was rubbish . The ps2 is way to much overpriced of you look at it's hardware, the gc hasn't enough games( but is the best next-gen console IMO even though it doesn't support online play), the Xbox, hasn't got much games that I like and is also overpriced but not as much as the ps2, and it's from microsoft.

By Vigilantie:

Jeez, you really can't compare the DS and PSP. It's like comparing an n64 with a ps2.

If I had to choose, DS.

No it isn't, n64 was just crap, with the ds nintendo is making the same mistakes all over again but atleast it is orifinal. But anyway if a lot of people see it like you then the choice is easy, most of them would chose the PSP any day, clearly the power and the ability and versitilty it has are appeiling. I mean you can play ps2 like games on the road in your hand, Playing FFX or GT4 on your handheld is a large and attractive step forward from what the gba had to offer, and most to most of them the positive things of the DS unfortunatly won't appeal.

Look Nintendo worst enemy is itself, if they just had made the n64 use cd's it would have made it a lot more appeling to devs to make games for it, but because of the lack of capacity they had to go with the psx to fulfill their dreams, nintendo neads to wake up and realize there is a whole worlds out there of asll kinds of different games, they only think of themselfs when designing a console and are blind to the needs of the rest of the developers, sony isn't, you can have games with a lot of FMV's on the psp, but you can also have a lot of games that look like the ones on the ds, with no fancy shit but good gameply, or games with booth, good gameply and fancy stuff, but on the ds there isn't a lot of choice, and so what of most of the games on the psp won't be that good, it will atleast open the market up and good devs will follow and though it will have relativly less better games then the ds in absolut terms it will have way more.

 

[Narcolepsy]

All right, I didn't intend to waste time replying, but I can't let some of these comments slide:

Nah the ps could handle way more polygons, thats why you could create rich and deatailed wordls, the n64 was only good for cartoonlike character like mario, everything looked kind like when you have bad vision and don't wear glasses, ...

... Wow.

Precisly, mario, metroid, zelda, thats it, you can't name any other good titles than that, it's always mario, metroid, zelda, the same games that came fro nes, snes and n64, The other grate games were made by RARE and they don't count as nintendo.

Name the corresponding games that Sony has made. Not a third party, and not Sony as the publisher, only Sony as the developer.

They did make them more mature, like I said before the games on the n64 were in 3d maybe but they felt, sounded and were presented just like on the older consoles, The psx games looked like they were made by professionals, why the hell do you think in gods name than only when the psx came that the masses accepted the consoles, because the games didn't look like kiddy games anymore they were on par with hollywood movies presentation wise, they looked like something new and cool. It wasn't all mario, zelda metroid, donky kong like on the nes, snes, n64.

Mature is not violence, sex, better graphics, or "darker" subject material. Please realize that!

No it isn't, n64 was just crap, with the ds nintendo is making the same mistakes all over again but atleast it is orifinal.

1.) You missed the point of his comparison. 2.) Did you own an N64? 3.) Orifinal? That's classic!
:thumbs:

I'm pretty sure your just arguing to argue now. Why I replied, I don't know. Probably just because I'm just arguing to argue too :E (and I'm stalling from my homework)!

 

[Gray Fox]

Name the corresponding games that Sony has made. Not a third party, and not Sony as the publisher, only Sony as the developer.

Ok you got me there, but sony has way more third parties making games for it, simply because like I said when they devlope their consoles they don't only think of themselfes

Mature is not violence, sex, better graphics, or "darker" subject material. Please realize that!

Whats wrong with you, can't you read. I didn't mean it as in more violant games, I meant it like in that they got better, more in the wuality like hollywood, you know. Nintendo's games are like movies from the 1900-1910, sony's are like modern. For example in the way story is presented. And most of nintendo games are immature, their stories are clearly aimed at kids, their character are also clearly aimed at kids, their way of presentation styll with mostly textboxes and simply plots is clearly infintile. Doesn't mean they have bad gameply but dony look as professional as the ones on sony ps. Look ma Whne you compare the games of the NES SNES and N64 they are very much alike, same character, same story, same basic gameply only in 3d. But on the playstation all kinds of different genres took off.

1.) You missed the point of his comparison. 2.) Did you own an N64? 3.) Orifinal? That's classic!

My mistake then.

I'm pretty sure your just arguing to argue now. Why I replied, I don't know. Probably just because I'm just arguing to argue too (and I'm stalling from my homework)!

You I see that now to, me and Warbie are pretty much saying the same things all over again, it is pointless now, well anyway I wish the DS good luck, I hope it does good and nintendo stay on the track that they have set out with the DS, but only with more more practical approach and flexability.

 

[Narcolepsy]

I would have never believed it. An argument on Half-Life 2 ended in a civil manner.
:cheers:

 

[Warbie]

We'll have to agree to disagree then

I'll stand by what I said, though. Sony haven't innovated in any way (not in terms of software and hardware) Well - they did get dual anaoluge out there first. Not so much their innovation, but more expanding on Nintendo's work (it's a shame the sticks are so poor :/) The first game that could be played dual analogue was actually Golden Eye (using 2 N64 pads. This was rather fiddly)

Nintendo have innovated for years (which I think you do realise - it's hard not to) - and continues to do so (The DS being the only innovative piece of hardware i've seen absolutely ages - other than the Eye Toy of course. Again, you aren't denying this)

I think you're making your decision based purely on your preference of video game. You'd prefer a PSP not because you think it's a great piece of kit, but because you're just not interested in what Nintendo have to offer (correct me if i'm wrong)

imo the n64 is the greatest console ever made (purely because it was home to the best video games there has ever been - imo of course). The SNES second. Infact I rate the GC and Dreamcast above the PSX too. And the Megadrive and PS2 and Xbox.

Take away MGS and FF7 and the PSX has nothing.

 

[Warbie]

You I see that now to, me and Warbie are pretty much saying the same things all over again, it is pointless now, well anyway I wish the DS good luck, I hope it does good and nintendo stay on the track that they have set out with the DS, but only with more more practical approach and flexability.

It's all in the interest of debate and good fun though

 

[Vigilante]

What's a megadrive?

 

[Warbie]

What's a megadrive?

Sega Genesis in the UK.

 

[Vigilante]

Oh...I wasn't a huge gensis fan. I did like boogerman, though.

 

[Gray Fox]

Well Ok, we'll leave it it there. :thumbs:

 

[Sid Burn]

Well, from wat I can see... PSP is much cooler. Though I dont plan to buy any of these...

 

[Gray Fox]

Yeah but that is the thing I hate most about it, cause you just know by looking at it's specs and the yway they have made it look, you know really cool and slick that the are not going to use the infliltration strategie, where by they make it cheap to break in to the market.
they are going to make it expensive so that only the rich people have it, act cool and mighty with it, because they can play ps2 quality games on their handheld while most of us are still playing on their graphic calculators or cellphones, and that is going to make it even more desirble by people cause just like rediculusly expensive close they are going to think this will make them special and cool, and the price will be high for a long time. In this instance I whish I was like Warbie or Vigilante.

 

[ShinRa]

Better GFX: PSP
Bigger Screen: PSP
Functionality: PSP
Useless touch screen: DS (Dont try and bullshit me, ive played plenty of games on it, its worthless.)
Final Fantasy 7: Advent Children: PSP

Game over.

PSP wins.

 

[Warbie]

Better GFX: PSP
Bigger Screen: PSP
Functionality: PSP
Useless touch screen: DS (Dont try and bullshit me, ive played plenty of games on it, its worthless.)
Final Fantasy 7: Advent Children: PSP

Game over.

PSP wins.

Better games: DS, easily.
Final Fantasy 6: > Final Fantasy 7

Gamer over

(the touch screen is great btw - you must have played the wrong games)

 

[Gray Fox]

Noooooooooo, people leave the DS alone goddamit, warbie is tired enough of arguing with me. And just when we made peace and stoped arguing this happens.

 

[Warbie]

lol, so true.

I must learn to let it go

 

[bizzy420]

omg the 64 controller was good for goldeneye, but besides that the 64 & gamecube controls are lame. ofcourse it all comes down to personal preference though. i got a DS right now, and after mario 64 i dont know what to do with it. where are all the other good games? i just want goldeneye on the ds, but thats not gonna happen...well i think there will be a golden eye but not the one we all loved.

PSP on the other hand will have 4 sports games at launch. i love playing sports games, and cant wait to play madden online when im on a road trip or flight.

i tried madden for the DS and its complete CRAP, ridgeracer looks like sh1t, and in the last EGM all the ds games *besides mario* were all rated like 3's and 4.5's. pretty weak scores if ya ask me.

ANYWAYS it all comes down to personal preference. ppl that like the DS will bash PSP, and ppl that like the PSP will bash the DS.

its like ATI vs NVIDIA.

Better games: DS, easily.

thats not a fact, just your opinion.

 

[Warbie]

thats not a fact, just your opinion.

Of course. But it's one shared by most keen gamers.

I put a list of DS games that are coming out soon in this thread - the lineup is incredible These titles may not be to everyones taste (they're either very multiplayer, or gameplay, focused - not so much visually), though.

If the thought of link up Zelda and Yoshi's Touch and Go don't do it for you, then a DS probably isn't a wise choice.

 

[Majestic XII]

I will get the DS. I mean come on... 90mins for the most advanced games on a PSP... no way. The DS got like 7 hours or so of battery time.

Plus, the DS adds more to the whole handheld thing, not just the same old thing but with better graphics like the PSP do.

Not sure if the PSP has this feature but when you play multiplayer on the DS, only one person needs to have the original game. The rest just downloads it from him.


Edit: I think i read somewhere that a Final Fantasy game is in the works for the DS too...

 

[Warbie]

Edit: I think i read somewhere that a Final Fantasy game is in the works for the DS too...

A remake of FF6 (best in the series ) and a new FF Crystal Chronicles (which should be good this time around). There's also new mutiplayer Mana and Zelda titles aswell as a new 'Tales of ....' game coming out. The DS just rocks for RPGs full stop \o/

For Japanese style roleplaying games, especially link up ones, the DS is easily going to be the platform of choice.

 

[Majestic XII]

A remake of FF6 (best in the series ) and a new FF Crystal Chronicles (which should be good this time around). There's also new mutiplayer Mana and Zelda titles aswell as a new 'Tales of ....' game coming out. The DS just rocks for RPGs full stop \o/

For Japanese style roleplaying games, especially link up ones, the DS is easily going to be the platform of choice.

Great, then its settled.... im going to get a DS.

(a movie/MP3 addon will be released later if you really need that too)

 

[Venmoch]

Hold on a second. Nintendo games not mature? I'm quite sure Eternal Darkness (Which rips off Lovecraft rotten) could be classed as a "Mature" game. Or Metal Gear Solid: Twin Snakes hell even Metroid Prime is "Mature"

And as far as quality of Graphics goes has everyone forgotton about Jet Force Gemini, I'm quite sure that it looked spectacular last time I checked. Or how can we forget Perfect Dark (Also a Nintendo game strictly speaking)

I dunno perhaps I'm just niggled at Body Harvest being denyed immortality as a genre breaker because people just didn't buy it.

 

[Psychanalysis05%]

Mana and Tales games on the DS? Hell yeah I'm getting a DS!
Oh wait, I bought one yesterday...nevermind.

 

[Gray Fox]

Hold on a second. Nintendo games not mature? I'm quite sure Eternal Darkness (Which rips off Lovecraft rotten) could be classed as a "Mature" game. Or Metal Gear Solid: Twin Snakes hell even Metroid Prime is "Mature"

Well whne we talked about mayurity we weren't talking about violance, infact most violant games are immature, they are meant for 13 year old boys in puberty who think playing a game with a lot of blood is cool.

And as far as quality of Graphics goes has everyone forgotton about Jet Force Gemini, I'm quite sure that it looked spectacular last time I checked. Or how can we forget Perfect Dark (Also a Nintendo game strictly speaking)

yeah but have you seen Crash team Racing or Soul reaver.
Look graphics are very objective, the ninteno used graphic who were suited for the games they made, less detail, but with filtering so you wouldn't see the squares. Sony used more polygons to be able to craete more detail but withn no filtering so you would see a lot of squares. I understand if you find that ugly, but for me n64 games where like i said to blury, and in games like ctr just look absolutely beautifull, you almost couldn't see the squares.

Okey this time, I'm serious, I'm not going to argue, Just leave it people we don't wanna start WW5( 3 being the D3 vs HL2,4 being the h2 vs hl2)

 

[Venmoch]

Well whne we talked about mayurity we weren't talking about violance, infact most violant games are immature, they are meant for 13 year old boys in puberty who think playing a game with a lot of blood is cool.

Right so Insanity is not mature? Have you even played Eternal Darkness? Just out of question, as its very much a mature game that has a nice bit of blood in it as well. In fact in all honesty I had a fairly hard time believeing it was a Nintendo Product.

I mean theres the bathtub for a start. And you'll know what I mean if you've played it. Or even the amazingness that happens as you pass the "servants" quarters for the first time.

 

[Gray Fox]

Well since you mentioned the monstrosity that is MGS TTS( a powerranger version that rapes the original classic, and is clearly, like cigaretts and beer, meant for 13 year old boys, even though of the rating), I assumend you were just talking about violance, but no I have never played ED so I can't comment on it.
But I'm kinda surpirsed you couldn't believe it was a nintendo games since you were also very surprised when I said that nintendo didn't make mature games. Now also since you think that ED is mature and not only because of the violance( or else you would have agreed with my post) and you were surprised that it was made by nintendo, I assume that you thought all the games previous of that, were immature or else you would not have been surprized. And if you don't agree with this post then your post doesn't make any sense.

 

[Warbie]

Eternal Darkness was a top game - not perfect, but still very good.

Arguing over the maturity of video games is usually a waste of time (especially considering why we like them - we're big kids still playing army)

As far as i'm concerned Counter Strike amd MGS are as mature as Mario 64, Tetris, or any other video game for that matter. What I care about is how much a game engages and challanges me. How immersed I get in the experience. Take Zelda OoT - that game entertained me on far more levels than virtually every other game i've played since. Does that make it more mature? Does its cartoony style make it for kids?

Who cares

 

[Gray Fox]

Hmm I understand what you mean, but I don't think anybody here understood what I meant with majurity, I don't know how to explain it better than I allready did, but it has to do with the presentation, I think like HL2 is very matchure, in that it has a vert deep going story and a lot to think about and also how it begins, it really looks like soemthing very professionaly made, you know it's not the violance, it's that everything is deeper, now this has nothing to do with the gameplay, and I can understand that you like Nintendo games but they aren't just like the ones on the sony consoles or PC.
To me their level of presentation of the story, the characters and evrtything else is like it was in the NES,SNES days. And I know some third party companies like Capcom RE4 have made this games, but the best and most representative games of the Nintendo are the ones from Nintendo self, while the ps is dominated by third party games, and most of them are mature in this way and some are very good. + sony consoles have a much more variety of games. That is also one reason why peopel buy the ps2, I mean it's hardware is crap, and still more expensive than the GC, but it offers a lot more games, and I do think it has to do with the company, because like I said they design their console with the 3d party devs in mind, and their consoels are most of the times much more versatile.

 

[Psychanalysis05%]

Mature games don't necessarily mean they have to look like Doom, Half Life or GTA. What everybody needs to remember that even Zelda is a mature series (with the possible exceptions of Four Swords and Windwaker) I'd like to see little kids get very far in those games without a lot of trouble - and the Mature style is being brought back with Reins of Sorrow. Metroid is not a violent game by any means Fox. Yes, it has guns and shooting, but it's mainly an adventure/puzzle game. And I severely doubt younger kids would get very far in Prime or Echoes. There's also the very dark setting for Echoes, which you don't see in games aimed at a younger audience.
Eternal Darkness is also not a game centered around violence, it has a little but it's there for fear and realism purposes. The actualy maturity of the game comes from the sheer dark and twisted atmosphere, and the fact that all of the main characters are going completely insane. And yes, I know that bathtub scene very well - considering it almost made me scream. There's also Viewtiful Joe - a huge help to the fact that cartoonish graphics don't make a kids game. It even has two difficulty settings, Kids and Adults. Tales of Symphonia is another example of this. A very emotional game which deals with hard issues of death (the main character feels pain for having to kill somebody he had befriended), a heavy burden of responsibility, fear of the unknown and there is even scenes involving ritual sacrifice and suicide - something definately not intended for children. It also has anime-styled celshaded graphics, which gives people the arrogant and ignorant impression that it's for younger children. Stupid people... If there's any console I see aimed for the younger market, it's the PS2, with its majority of cheesy movie cash-ins, platformers like Spyro and Crash Bandicoot, and simple racing games. The most mature console I see on the market is the Xbox, with it centered around realistic sports titles and gritty action.
The Gamecube I see as a console centering around the hardcore gaming audience, with a sidelong of titles such as the Mario Sports series and games like Luigi's mansion as 'something for everybody'. The mainstay of what people want out of Nintendo though, is solid, gameplay-oriented titles such as Metroid, Zelda and 98% of the Castlevania series.
You may also take note that Nintendo had exclusive rights to Resident Evil+ and Zero, and until recently exclusivity to Res Evil 4.

In all truth, GTA is one of the most immature games you can get for any system. It just has 'mature content'. If a rating stands for real maturity, I expect that means Carmageddon and Gore are the height of maturity?

 

[Gray Fox]

You still don't get what I mean. I really don't think Zelda is mature, and I certainly don't think GTA is mature, it is the prime example of a game for 13 year olds who think blood is cool. And ps2 has way more original games than the Nintendo gc, way more, it has also a lot of licenses but also more better and original games, that you can't find em is you're own fault, then stick to Nintendo, where you don't actually have to search for a good game or find reviews, but just have to look if mario is in the title.

 

[KagePrototype]

You still don't get what I mean. I really don't think Zelda is mature, and I certainly don't think GTA is mature, it is the prime example of a game for 13 year olds who think blood is cool. And ps2 has way more original games than the Nintendo gc, way more, it has also a lot of licenses but also more better and original games, that you can't find em is you're own fault, then stick to Nintendo, where you don't actually have to search for a good game or find reviews, but just have to look if mario is in the title.

Then what is mature? You've been spending so much time explaining what mature isn't, you've forgotten to clarify what it is specifically. It's hard to follow your descriptions and base them on a wide selection of games, when you just seem to pick out specific ones.

 

[Psychanalysis05%]

Nintendo pioneered original gaming and continue to do so. I doubt you would find anything quite as original as say, Wario Ware, Polarion or Feel the Magic (three DS titles) right now.
Nintendo were first with a lot of games and game styles. Metroid, Mario (the first successful platformer, with the possible exception of the Willy series), Zelda, and hundreds of other games were put across by Nintendo. Mario 64 was another game known for originality - considering it set standards for every 3d platformer after it.

"that you can't find em is you're own fault, then stick to Nintendo, where you don't actually have to search for a good game or find reviews, but just have to look if mario is in the title."

You arrogant bastard. I own 2 'Mario games on my GC, Mario Golf and Mario Power Tennis, only because they're better than the officially lisenced games in terms of gameplay. But the GC has many fantastic games that don't even have anything to do with Mario. For example, Metroid is a prime (no pun intended) example of this. If you can show me a more immersive, in depth and carefully polished experience on the PS2 I will lay down and leave this be. But unfortunately, there isn't. Not even ICO was as well done as any Metroid game. Especially Prime, which set standards for 3d adventures - and more recently Echoes which again set even more new standards in adventure games. Zelda, although the most recent addition (Windwaker) took a more cartoonish approach, it again introduced many original features to the adventure genre - especially the whole aspect of travelling huge distances by boat. And if you look into the Zelda pinned for release on the GC next year, you'll see a lot more originality and a very mature style. Super Smash Brothers is definately very original. There aren't many other games like it - or there weren't any until people started to copy it. The Mario Party series, although not exactly mature oriented has been copied so much in the more recent Xbox and PS2 party games. You'll probably notice that a lot of people like to copy Nintendo's gameplay mechanics. And if you can find me a more original game on the PS2 than Wario Ware, Inc. - I'll eat my socks.
Even the recent Paper Mario on the GC has a lot of very original additions to the RPG genre. OH MY GOD LOOK IT'S ONE GAME THAT HAS MARIO IN THE TITLE OMGWTFBBQ!!!!11
There's also Viewtiful Joe - which up until Sony handed Capcom a lot of money was a Nintendo exclusive.

There's also the lisence issue, it's simply because Sony have more money. Did you know Half Life was a week away from a Dreamcast release (it even came with Blue Shift) until Sony handed Sierra a big wad of cash and grabbed a PS2 exclusive.

Remember this, too Fox. Metal Gear was originally a Nintendo lisence, and the PSX was originally supposed to be an addon for the Super Nintendo.

In future, do your research before you say something. And always make sure you know what you're talking about when you make an argument for fear of looking like a retard.

 

[bizzy420]

is warioware that the game with a bunch of minigames? its coming out for the ds, and is already on one the gamecube right?


cause if its the game im thinking about, its complete trash. lame ass minigames that dont even amuse my little brother...but hey everyone has there own opinion. i'd rather take socom2 online over metroid, but my brother would rather play metroid. does it mean that metroid sux?? NO, it just means certain ppl like cerain games. its all preference.

 

[Psychanalysis05%]

You just contradicted yourself. You called a game complete trash, then you said "certain people like certain games, it's all preference".
You can't make such an opinionated statement then basically say "you shouldn't make opinionated statements.
Plus there's the fact that I didn't argue if the games were good or not, and neither did Fox. We were talking about originality and maturity.
You mentioned Socom 2 there - a game that shines the fact that a lot of standard PS2 games are unoriginal mindless nonsense. A game that blatantly was just a cash in for the popularity of games like CS - real world setting multiplayer combat.
You also neglected that fact that Wario Ware is a party game - intended for up to 16 people as insane fun that doubles with copious amounts of alcohol involved. I own it and break it out when friends are over and I haven't met a person yet who didn't have fun with it.
It's not intended as a single player game.

 

[bizzy420]

im saying that i think wario is trash, but my brother likes it.
so im trying to say that i prefer one type of games, he prefers another.

not trying to start a flame war, just trying to say that topics like this will never end.

 

[Gray Fox]

Nintendo pioneered original gaming and continue to do so. I doubt you would find anything quite as original as say, Wario Ware, Polarion or Feel the Magic (three DS titles) right now.
Nintendo were first with a lot of games and game styles. Metroid, Mario (the first successful platformer, with the possible exception of the Willy series), Zelda, and hundreds of other games were put across by Nintendo. Mario 64 was another game known for originality - considering it set standards for every 3d platformer after it.

If you think wario ware's gamelay or polarion or feel the magic are the first games with that kind of a gameply then you really need a reality check. Like you said with mario, first succesfull platformer. So am I to understand that mario wasn't original but just the first to be succesful, isn't that what you all accused the ps of doing, taking things and just making them succesfull. Well i see there is more hypocracy. But then again even though you have the gba, you still proclaim ninteno an innovator. Mario 64 was just plain boring, it ddin't set any record but for boringness, the only thing it showed was that it was better to still do platformers in 2d or 3d but still sidescroller, and I do not see anything original in mario 64, it has the same style of gameolay as the old marios, and don't come bsing that it's openstijl approach was original cause the old mario used it to, if you remember correctly you could chose on a map which playingfield you would go to on a little map.

You arrogant bastard. I own 2 'Mario games on my GC, Mario Golf and Mario Power Tennis, only because they're better than the officially lisenced games in terms of gameplay. But the GC has many fantastic games that don't even have anything to do with Mario. For example, Metroid is a prime (no pun intended) example of this. If you can show me a more immersive, in depth and carefully polished experience on the PS2 I will lay down and leave this be. But unfortunately, there isn't. Not even ICO was as well done as any Metroid game. Especially Prime, which set standards for 3d adventures - and more recently Echoes which again set even more new standards in adventure games. Zelda, although the most recent addition (Windwaker) took a more cartoonish approach, it again introduced many original features to the adventure genre - especially the whole aspect of travelling huge distances by boat. And if you look into the Zelda pinned for release on the GC next year, you'll see a lot more originality and a very mature style. Super Smash Brothers is definately very original. There aren't many other games like it - or there weren't any until people started to copy it. The Mario Party series, although not exactly mature oriented has been copied so much in the more recent Xbox and PS2 party games. You'll probably notice that a lot of people like to copy Nintendo's gameplay mechanics. And if you can find me a more original game on the PS2 than Wario Ware, Inc. - I'll eat my socks.
Even the recent Paper Mario on the GC has a lot of very original additions to the RPG genre. OH MY GOD LOOK IT'S ONE GAME THAT HAS MARIO IN THE TITLE OMGWTFBBQ!!!!11
There's also Viewtiful Joe - which up until Sony handed Capcom a lot of money was a Nintendo exclusive.

Okay frist two part you are right, I am arrogant, and yes metroid prime was really original, you got me there. But still GTA:VC is more immersive and in depth, but no not more polished, and no not mature IMO but that wasn't the comment.
Second thing. What you think the catroonish style of zelda is original, lol. You think traveling by boat on water from dungeon to dungeon is original, again GTA, freeroaming. But zelda had some other cool new gameplay elements so yeah you are right it was original, but just not the things you pointed out.
Thirdly: Smashbrothers original, yeah real original, put the the same old character that every nintendo fan likes, instead of taking the risk of inveenting new,against each other, and in a fighting game. Well looking at nintendo's standarts of originality, yeah you are right gain, it is original.
Fourthly: eat your socks, casue here is Kuri Kuri mix, besides wario ware might be cool, but not something most people would dish out 50 bucks for, for that money you can play far more, and more original games
Fifthly: Yup paper mario is very original, exept the fact that it's a mario game, with the same old generic mario story, but yeah i ceriously agree with you, it makes up for it by it's gameplay.

There's also the lisence issue, it's simply because Sony have more money. Did you know Half Life was a week away from a Dreamcast release (it even came with Blue Shift) until Sony handed Sierra a big wad of cash and grabbed a PS2 exclusive.

Yup i hate sony to, if not for that crap I would have played GTA:SA al ong time ago, but you have to ask yourselfe is it really there fault or of the developer, who obviously care more for money than for their fans. See now we both just act stupid and give sony the fault. But I do wonder why the new RE is only gc, it seems kinda strange for a series that turned the survival horror genre on it's head and became succesfull on the PSX that it suddenly goed to the GC, but I guess you didn't notice that.

Remember this, too Fox. Metal Gear was originally a Nintendo lisence, and the PSX was originally supposed to be an addon for the Super Nintendo.

In future, do your research before you say something. And always make sure you know what you're talking about when you make an argument for fear of looking like a retard.

Well if you have to hear from a retarted person that mg was originally for the msx/msx then that says a lot of about you.
And the fact that the sony ps was originally supposed to be an addon for the snes, but went on to outsel nintendo and make sony the biggest console maker just shows you how stupid nintendo is.

You know there is no sense in arguing me, just look at the market, you know there is a reason sony is way more succesfull than nintendo. You know there is areason that the new controller of the gc looks a lot like a kindergaten version of the ps2 controller and not like it's as you folks describe it brilliant N64 controller. When you say nintedno tries to be original, well look at the gba, look at the SNES, N64. Yup very original bring the same old character, with the same old gameplay, in 3d. Ok I'll admit the N64 games werent that unoriginal. But OMG the GBA, thats all i can say.
And just look at some basic desing of the concoles, you see that nintedno thinks nly of themselfes and their kind of games, while the ps and ps2 can accomodate a variety of different games. Caus see some games requir more than 30 mb of ram, if nintedno played it smart mgs and ff would have come on the n64, and they are making the same mistakes again. And you know looking at my posts and all of the other, I do see now that nintendo tries to be orignal, but most of it's followers are not intersted in that, the yare intersted in mario, zelda, metroid. And so basicly nintedno when it comes with some original concept as paper mario, it has to add the mario twist or else the tilte will fail, ashame. A real shame. But then again that is why a lot of original games on the ps fail and no one hears of them, caus the ydon't have something as big as mario in their games.

By Kageprototype

Then what is mature? You've been spending so much time explaining what mature isn't, you've forgotten to clarify what it is specifically. It's hard to follow your descriptions and base them on a wide selection of games, when you just seem to pick out specific ones.

Ok I'll explain it so. Look at hollywood now and hollywood in 1940.
Now you could say the movie industry has matured.
Well the same goes fro games. Especially when you compare the ps with the N64, it'l like comparing a modern film with a film out of the 1940. Now while presentation adn story dept and all that kind of stuff aren't as important as gameply they do ad, and they are orgiginal, and the psx approach was oroginal, while the N64 wasn't.

 

[^Ben]

I wasnt a fan of either handhelds but I looked into the the PSP and HOT DIGGITY DAMN I WANT!