Sony Ps3 to loose backwards compatability completely

[SavannahLion]

I think it's a big deal Nintendo dropped the component out on the GameCube. Not to mention that I had to order my component cables THROUGH Nintendo to use that functionality to begin with.

I never really understood the reasoning behind that. According to Nintendo, less than 1% of their total user base ever used the DAV. Not having the cables readily available in stores played a really big role with the rest of the user base not utilizing the DAV. Classic chicken and egg problem.

My comment about Nintendo not in the habit of offering carrots and then taking them away still stands. I never said that Nintendo never offers, then removes, features from their consoles. I said that Nintendo does not have the tendency to offer, then remove, features from their consoles.

[Dartful Dodger]

Compared to the PS3, PS2 games suck.

You're gonna have to elaborate, because there are FAR more games I'd rather play on PS2 than the PS3.

The last PS2 game you bought new sucks compared to the last PS3 game you bought new.

[Ginsu Victim]

Compared to the PS3, PS2 games suck.

You're gonna have to elaborate, because there are FAR more games I'd rather play on PS2 than the PS3.

The last PS2 game you bought new sucks compared to the last PS3 game you bought new.

Thank you for clarifying, because the blanket statement of "Compared to the PS3, PS2 games suck" is untrue when you look at the libraries for each.

However, the last game I bought new for PS2 was Shadow of the Colossus and I haven't bought anything for the PS3.

[DaveMMR]

Compared to the PS3, PS2 games suck.

You're gonna have to elaborate, because there are FAR more games I'd rather play on PS2 than the PS3.

Ginsu beat me to it.  I was going to say you're probably playing the wrong games.  There are like a hundred (educated guess, that) bona fide classics that are (or were - in GTA III's case) PS2 exclusives.   

I fired up the PS2 the other day and got sucked back into Bombastic (the exploding dice puzzle game).

[hypernova]

This is a retrogaming forum, right?

I want BC for every console I ever buy-unless I can emulate faithfully on a PC or another device for little or no cost.  I play my old GC games and PS2 games at least a few months out of the year.

[patrickl]

I like retrogaming (as in playing games from the eighties), but I don't consider playing a PS2 game on a PS3 console retro gaming.

I gave my PS2 away because the PS2 games were too pathetic compared to PC games and I didn't play them anymore. Then the Xbox 360 and PS3 came along and they give a console experience almost equal to playing on a PC.

[DaveMMR]

I like retrogaming (as in playing games from the eighties), but I don't consider playing a PS2 game on a PS3 console retro gaming.

I gave my PS2 away because the PS2 games were too pathetic compared to PC games and I didn't play them anymore. Then the Xbox 360 and PS3 came along and they give a console experience almost equal to playing on a PC.

I assume you mean graphically, correct? 

[shmokes]

Dartful is right.  What he means is that Shadow of the Colossus on the PS3 is better than Shadow of the Colossus on PS2.  Obviously there is not PS3 version, but if there was it would be better.  And there are games coming out constantly.  And there are too many for you to play them all.  For most of us there are too many to play even all the good ones.  That's why backward compatibility is great in theory, but not so important in practice.  Because if you're going to invest a bunch of time in a game, and there's a PS3 game and a PS2 game that interests you, you'll probably pick the PS3 game because it is objectively superior.

PS2 has far more good games, but PS3 has enough that almost all people will virtually give up playing PS2 when they get a PS3 regardless of whether playing PS2 games is still an option.

With all that said, Shadow of the Colossus, Ico and God of War were three of the top reasons I wanted a PS3 over an Xbox 360.  I never owned a PS2.

[patrickl]

I like retrogaming (as in playing games from the eighties), but I don't consider playing a PS2 game on a PS3 console retro gaming.

I gave my PS2 away because the PS2 games were too pathetic compared to PC games and I didn't play them anymore. Then the Xbox 360 and PS3 came along and they give a console experience almost equal to playing on a PC.

I assume you mean graphically, correct? 

Sigh. Do you seriously think that newer games only add better graphics?

[AtomSmasher]

I like retrogaming (as in playing games from the eighties), but I don't consider playing a PS2 game on a PS3 console retro gaming.

I gave my PS2 away because the PS2 games were too pathetic compared to PC games and I didn't play them anymore. Then the Xbox 360 and PS3 came along and they give a console experience almost equal to playing on a PC.

I assume you mean graphically, correct? 

Sigh. Do you seriously think that newer games only add better graphics?

Why didn't you try playing some of the new (at the time) PS2 games instead of giving away your PS2?  And why would anyone assume you were comparing old ps2 games to new pc games when at the time (before the 360 and ps3 came out) several new ps2 games were released which were at least as good (in terms of gameplay, not graphics) as anything on the pc (at the time)?

[patrickl]

several new ps2 games were released which were at least as good (in terms of gameplay, not graphics) as anything on the pc (at the time)?

Well I didn't think so. Actually, it was more the shallow gameplay that started putting me off. But sure the dated graphics also started taking away from the immersion and meant it lacked the power to draw me in.

[DaveMMR]

I like retrogaming (as in playing games from the eighties), but I don't consider playing a PS2 game on a PS3 console retro gaming.

I gave my PS2 away because the PS2 games were too pathetic compared to PC games and I didn't play them anymore. Then the Xbox 360 and PS3 came along and they give a console experience almost equal to playing on a PC.

I assume you mean graphically, correct? 

Sigh. Do you seriously think that newer games only add better graphics?

Yeah, pretty much.  I mean, maybe they implemented new features but outside of six-axis control, perhaps, I don't see some "leaps and bounds" difference between games on PS2 (or PS1, Dreamcast, et al for that matter) and PS3 that would make PS2 games play worse than PC games while PS3 games are comparable or better.

I don't see the gameplay offerings on PS3 and XBox360 being any more or less shallow than those of the previous generation.  (ex. I saw footage of GTA IV and it looked great but I remember that I grew bored of GTA III and VC so I never got excited for it.)

[patrickl]

I don't see the gameplay offerings on PS3 and XBox360 being any more or less shallow than those of the previous generation.  (ex. I saw footage of GTA IV and it looked great but I remember that I grew bored of GTA III and VC so I never got excited for it.)

Which is exactly an example where the difference is huge. GTA IV is lightyears better than GTA III. Really, you have got to be kidding me (or trolling).

If you think the Xbox and PS2 offer the same (or even better) quality of games as the Xbox 360 and PS3 then fine, stick with your old console. At least accept that you are an exception though. Especially among the people who actually OWN a PS3

[DaveMMR]

I don't see the gameplay offerings on PS3 and XBox360 being any more or less shallow than those of the previous generation.  (ex. I saw footage of GTA IV and it looked great but I remember that I grew bored of GTA III and VC so I never got excited for it.)

Which is exactly an example where the difference is huge. GTA IV is lightyears better than GTA III. Really, you have got to be kidding me (or trolling).

If you think the Xbox and PS2 offer the same (or even better) quality of games as the Xbox 360 and PS3 then fine, stick with your old console. At least accept that you are an exception though. Especially among the people who actually OWN a PS3

No, I'm not trolling.  I'm asking you to explain your assertions.

You're saying "PS2 < PC <= PS3".  But you're not really convincing me as to why this is so.  "GTA IV is lightyears better than GTA III".  Okay, fine.  How, other than graphically, is it light years better?  What features can't be done on previous generations (besides the graphics).  That's not disagreement. I haven't played it so I honestly do not know.  Sell it to me.

From what I've seen and read, the game play of new releases looks to have not changed dramatically from last generation to this generation.  That's why I'm confused.  It's not like the switch from 2D to 3D.  You're not convincing me with "Immersion" as it sounds like some corporate buzzword with vague definitions. 

Not that there's anything wrong with wanting better graphics.  But you scoffed at that notion so I'm asking for a little elaboration. 

At least accept that you are an exception though.

Yeah, not really.  Part of Nintendo's success this go around is that they did offer a new way to play.  Whether it's actually better is open to much debate, but that's besides the point.   

Viewing what Sony and Microsoft had to offer left many consumers with the impression that it's the same types of games with better graphics.   If there is more to it than that, they were unwise to not highlight those next-gen features.   Granted they're still great systems, but for myriad reasons, they didn't do as well as they should have.

And I posted this silly, but thought-provoking article before, but allow me to quote it:

It's true, the PS3 launch games seem to be able to simulate some phat-ass cloth and fluid... but how much difference was there in the actual gaming experience? Gears of War for the 360 is beautiful to look at but nobody is claiming it's a truly different - or novel - experience than other shooters on the market; it's more a refinement of the genre than a reinvention of it. And history says in the world of gaming, that isn't enough.

[AtomSmasher]

several new ps2 games were released which were at least as good (in terms of gameplay, not graphics) as anything on the pc (at the time)?

Well I didn't think so. Actually, it was more the shallow gameplay that started putting me off. But sure the dated graphics also started taking away from the immersion and meant it lacked the power to draw me in.

Just to name a few later releases on the ps2:  Okami, Bully, Shadow of the Colossus, God of War 2, Final Fantasy XII (the only FF I've enjoyed).  I don't think anyone who played them when they came out would say they have shallow gameplay.  I'm mainly a PC gamer myself, but each of these games drew me away from the pc for a while.

And I'm curious, since you're a pc gamer, do you only buy PC games that have really high minimum requirements because you feel those will be the only games that are worth playing?  If you do, then you missed out on some great games such as Sins of the Solar Empire and Darwinia, both of which had extremely low requirements when they were released.

[HaRuMaN]

...Final Fantasy XII (the only FF I've enjoyed)...

Blasphemy!

[patrickl]

No, I'm not trolling.  I'm asking you to explain your assertions.

OK fair enough.

You're saying "PS2 < PC <= PS3".  But you're not really convincing me as to why this is so.  "GTA IV is lightyears better than GTA III".  Okay, fine.  How, other than graphically, is it light years better?  What features can't be done on previous generations (besides the graphics).  That's not disagreement. I haven't played it so I honestly do not know.  Sell it to me.

GTA III is a driving/fps type game with some simple extra features added. GTA IV offers you a living city where 24 hours a day something is happening all over town. To me GTA IV really gives the feeling of going on a city trip and driving through a big city in a foreign country (although for New Yorkers it probably looks more like a drive around the block). I love just driving around when the sun is setting. My girlfriend actually likes to watch me drive around town (she doesn't like me shooting people though).

I'd actually say the graphics could (should) be a bit better than they are now, but I understand that the game shows so many elements that more detail per element is impossible (I mean the cars in a typical racing game look a lot better). Overall the city scapes are breathtaking.

You might frown at wanting better graphics, but the graphics do help a lot in the immersion effect. These games are supposed to be a simulation of life as a gangster. GTA IV goes a lot further in actually drawing you in. When they look as realistic as possible and offer as much as possible freedom in and interaction with the environment, then it works best.

In the end it's not the advances in graphics, but it's the massive depth of a game like GTA IV that puts it lightyears ahead of a simple game like GTA III. It's like comparing the original Wolfenstein to Doom, or actually more like Wolfenstein to Quake. I guess you could say it's the same game and has the same gameplay, but it has much more than just better graphics.

At least accept that you are an exception though.

Yeah, not really.  Part of Nintendo's success this go around is that they did offer a new way to play.  Whether it's actually better is open to much debate, but that's besides the point.   

You left out the bit where I said "especially among people who OWN a PS3". Because you are claiming to be talking for them. People who own a PS3 obviously do see the need to play the new games. At first (when the PS3 was just out and hardly any games were available) they might have wanted to play some old games, but once they buy a few new games I doubt they ever look back. By now there are enough good PS3 games out that you don't need (or have the time) to play the old stuff anyway.

[DaveMMR]

Thank you. 

You left out the bit where I said "especially among people who OWN a PS3". Because you are claiming to be talking for them. People who own a PS3 obviously do see the need to play the new games. At first (when the PS3 was just out and hardly any games were available) they might have wanted to play some old games, but once they buy a few new games I doubt they ever look back. By now there are enough good PS3 games out that you don't need (or have the time) to play the old stuff anyway.

I wasn't intending to speak for PS3 owners, as I don't own one.  I was being inquisitive as a consumer. I'm not seeing the justification in buying a new system that's creating a pile of obsolete software on my shelve.  And you explained your reasoning so now I see you're point.

But if you are accusing me of speaking on behalf of PS3 owners, keep in mind that you're doing the same thing by saying that "[they] don't need (or have the time) to play the old stuff anyway."  Who's to say that some PS3 owner might, heaven forfend, want to play a PS2 game?  Granted, PS3's library has gotten considerably better but it's not so special that it's going to suddenly render every video game since the 70's moot. 

And heck, some of my favorite PS1 games (Crash Bandicoot 3, Metal Gear Solid - nevermind the GC or PC version -, Parappa the Rappa) were never improved upon for the PS2.   Sure glad they had BC, because my original PSX broke. 

[Dartful Dodger]

You left out the bit where I said "especially among people who OWN a PS3". Because you are claiming to be talking for them. People who own a PS3 obviously do see the need to play the new games. At first (when the PS3 was just out and hardly any games were available) they might have wanted to play some old games, but once they buy a few new games I doubt they ever look back. By now there are enough good PS3 games out that you don't need (or have the time) to play the old stuff anyway.

This was my point.  I assumed PS3 was dropping the BC months ago, I was going to get a PS3/Blu-ray eventually, so I figured I'd get one before they removed PS2.  At the time PS3 games were over 60 bucks, so I bought the PS3, RockBand and a handful of PS2 games.

It's funny that patrickl mentioned GTA IV, because that's the game that killed all the PS2 games I bought.  There's no point in playing any PS2 fps when you have GTA IV, even racing around the city in GTA IV is more entertaining than a PS2 racing game.  I bought GTA IV a month after it was released and I’m still playing it.

I did buy Karaoke Revolution 3 for the PS2 two weeks ago, but I got it for 20 bucks used and as soon as Guitar Hero World Tour is released that game will be shelved.

A lot of PS3 games are now under 30 bucks, plus you can rent all the games at Block Busters, BC will just confuse new buyers into buying a PS2 game they’ll regret.

[patrickl]

But if you are accusing me of speaking on behalf of PS3 owners, keep in mind that you're doing the same thing by saying that "[they] don't need (or have the time) to play the old stuff anyway."  Who's to say that some PS3 owner might, heaven forfend, want to play a PS2 game?  Granted, PS3's library has gotten considerably better but it's not so special that it's going to suddenly render every video game since the 70's moot. 

Well sure there might be "some" people who would like to play their PS2 games, but Sony interviewed people and found out that people really don't care about BC. Do you really think Sony would just take out the functionality if droves of people would have a problem with it?

Besides, I don't feel console games don't compare to classics. Playing a classic arcade game is a completely different experience from playing a modern game. Modern games are more like a movie. You  play it till the end and you're done. Maybe you'll do that a few times, but the surprise is gone and the game loses appeal. Especially when a better version comes along. Or it's a simulation game where better hardware lends itself to a better experience and the going back to the old is just weird. Like watching black and white movies with audio sound instead of a Blu-Ray movie with surround sound.

[patrickl]

It's funny that patrickl mentioned GTA IV, because that's the game that killed all the PS2 games I bought.  There's no point in playing any PS2 fps when you have GTA IV, even racing around the city in GTA IV is more entertaining than a PS2 racing game.  I bought GTA IV a month after it was released and I’m still playing it.

Yeah same here. For my true racing kicks I load up GRID, but GTA IV can keep me entertained all the time. There is always something to do.

Indeed amazingly even just buzzing through the streets never seems to get boring.

[DaveMMR]

But if you are accusing me of speaking on behalf of PS3 owners, keep in mind that you're doing the same thing by saying that "[they] don't need (or have the time) to play the old stuff anyway."  Who's to say that some PS3 owner might, heaven forfend, want to play a PS2 game?  Granted, PS3's library has gotten considerably better but it's not so special that it's going to suddenly render every video game since the 70's moot. 

Well sure there might be "some" people who would like to play their PS2 games, but Sony interviewed people and found out that people really don't care about BC. Do you really think Sony would just take out the functionality if droves of people would have a problem with it?

Be careful with those focus group interviews.  They were responsible for the dreaded original Xbox controller.   

But I do see what you mean.  There were probably a lot of games that were hard to go back to when I played the next gen offerings (pick any of them).  But I'm also one who likes to see preservation efforts made for old games - which is why I'm not so keen on Sony's back turning towards it's old back catalog.

[Dartful Dodger]

Indeed amazingly even just buzzing through the streets never seems to get boring.

I'd have finished the game by now if I actually played it.
When I find that I don't have time to actually play out a scenario I tell myself just 15 minutes of mayhem.

I just drive up and down the sidewalks staining the hood of the car red until it eventually catches on fire.  Then I jump out of it at top speed so it'll coast into a group of cars at a busy intersection or a police barricade.  After I die depending on which hospital I start from I'll either go in to the hospital and shoot it up, or go down the street to the strip club and shoot that up.  They’ll keep restarting me at the same hospital so I’ll just keep doing shooting up the same building.

I'll do this for about two hours a night and I never get tired of it.

[patrickl]

Indeed amazingly even just buzzing through the streets never seems to get boring.

I'd have finished the game by now if I actually played it.
When I find that I don't have time to actually play out a scenario I tell myself just 15 minutes of mayhem.

I just drive up and down the sidewalks staining the hood of the car red until it eventually catches on fire.  Then I jump out of it at top speed so it'll coast into a group of cars at a busy intersection or a police barricade.  After I die depending on which hospital I start from I'll either go in to the hospital and shoot it up, or go down the street to the strip club and shoot that up.  They’ll keep restarting me at the same hospital so I’ll just keep doing shooting up the same building.

I'll do this for about two hours a night and I never get tired of it.

Ha, ha, ha, I do the same. I think I'm only one third through the story. I spend most of my time racing/flying/sailing through town and fighting off the cops that inevitably try to take me down.

I also like to climb up a construction crane with a lot of ammo. Taking down the choppers and shooting everything down below. Throwing handgrenades is a lot of fun too. Nice way to block an intersection with smoking cars wrecks.

[shmokes]

I'm pretty sure that Dartful isn't actually serious, but regardless, that's pretty ---smurfing--- funny.

[hypernova]

Indeed amazingly even just buzzing through the streets never seems to get boring.

I'd have finished the game by now if I actually played it.
When I find that I don't have time to actually play out a scenario I tell myself just 15 minutes of mayhem.

I just drive up and down the sidewalks staining the hood of the car red until it eventually catches on fire.  Then I jump out of it at top speed so it'll coast into a group of cars at a busy intersection or a police barricade.  After I die depending on which hospital I start from I'll either go in to the hospital and shoot it up, or go down the street to the strip club and shoot that up.  They’ll keep restarting me at the same hospital so I’ll just keep doing shooting up the same building.

I'll do this for about two hours a night and I never get tired of it.

I would assume that means there's no shortage of doctors and nurses in the game then.

[SithMaster]

Indeed amazingly even just buzzing through the streets never seems to get boring.

I'd have finished the game by now if I actually played it.
When I find that I don't have time to actually play out a scenario I tell myself just 15 minutes of mayhem.

I just drive up and down the sidewalks staining the hood of the car red until it eventually catches on fire.  Then I jump out of it at top speed so it'll coast into a group of cars at a busy intersection or a police barricade.  After I die depending on which hospital I start from I'll either go in to the hospital and shoot it up, or go down the street to the strip club and shoot that up.  They’ll keep restarting me at the same hospital so I’ll just keep doing shooting up the same building.

I'll do this for about two hours a night and I never get tired of it.

Ha, ha, ha, I do the same. I think I'm only one third through the story. I spend most of my time racing/flying/sailing through town and fighting off the cops that inevitably try to take me down.

There's a story?

In FPS games I enjoy replaying the old stuff for the classic maps/missions.  I still play doom for a reason and will continue to do so.

As for gears of war, well they revolutionized FPS genre by taking away "circle strafing dances" and jumping.  You only play that game for the chainsaw anyway (hoping doom 4 does something similar).

But if you are accusing me of speaking on behalf of PS3 owners, keep in mind that you're doing the same thing by saying that "[they] don't need (or have the time) to play the old stuff anyway."  Who's to say that some PS3 owner might, heaven forfend, want to play a PS2 game?  Granted, PS3's library has gotten considerably better but it's not so special that it's going to suddenly render every video game since the 70's moot. 

Well sure there might be "some" people who would like to play their PS2 games, but Sony interviewed people and found out that people really don't care about BC. Do you really think Sony would just take out the functionality if droves of people would have a problem with it?

Besides, I don't feel console games don't compare to classics. Playing a classic arcade game is a completely different experience from playing a modern game. Modern games are more like a movie. You  play it till the end and you're done. Maybe you'll do that a few times, but the surprise is gone and the game loses appeal. Especially when a better version comes along. Or it's a simulation game where better hardware lends itself to a better experience and the going back to the old is just weird. Like watching black and white movies with audio sound instead of a Blu-Ray movie with surround sound.

The term classic is relative here.  See I consider anything not current gen classic though a more narrow view would be anything that uses sprites or something.  With modern games I play again to live that experience repeatedly.  Another Halo example being when I play through countless times just for the Maw, Truth and Reconciliation, and the Silent Cartographer.  Sure I expect similar events to happen but I don't need surprise to be entertained.  I just need a challenge.

Aren't all games like a movie then?  Look at any of the 8 bit platformers.  Once you beat Mario Bros 3 are you really going to go back since you know where the turtle spawns and where the mushrooms are?

[patrickl]

There's a story?

Yeah, I actually like the story too. In GTA III I tried a few of the missions and they were boring/simplistic. in GTA IV it's really more like a movie where you actively take part. I even remember all the characters if I haven't played for a while (I played Godfather on the Wii and the trouble was that I could never keep track of who was who and thus lost interest quickly).

But if you are accusing me of speaking on behalf of PS3 owners, keep in mind that you're doing the same thing by saying that "[they] don't need (or have the time) to play the old stuff anyway."  Who's to say that some PS3 owner might, heaven forfend, want to play a PS2 game?  Granted, PS3's library has gotten considerably better but it's not so special that it's going to suddenly render every video game since the 70's moot. 

Well sure there might be "some" people who would like to play their PS2 games, but Sony interviewed people and found out that people really don't care about BC. Do you really think Sony would just take out the functionality if droves of people would have a problem with it?

Besides, I don't feel console games don't compare to classics. Playing a classic arcade game is a completely different experience from playing a modern game. Modern games are more like a movie. You  play it till the end and you're done. Maybe you'll do that a few times, but the surprise is gone and the game loses appeal. Especially when a better version comes along. Or it's a simulation game where better hardware lends itself to a better experience and the going back to the old is just weird. Like watching black and white movies with audio sound instead of a Blu-Ray movie with surround sound.

The term classic is relative here.  See I consider anything not current gen classic though a more narrow view would be anything that uses sprites or something.  With modern games I play again to live that experience repeatedly.  Another Halo example being when I play through countless times just for the Maw, Truth and Reconciliation, and the Silent Cartographer.  Sure I expect similar events to happen but I don't need surprise to be entertained.  I just need a challenge.

Well that's why I made the distinction. In the modern (shooter/sandbox type) games, a big part of the attraction is the movie aspect. If it's just shooting then you might as well keep playing Doom.

I guess you can find a challenge in them still though. Just like some people see it as a challenge how many movies they can watch in succession.

Aren't all games like a movie then?  Look at any of the 8 bit platformers.  Once you beat Mario Bros 3 are you really going to go back since you know where the turtle spawns and where the mushrooms are?

That's not really the same now is it. Seriously, have you played any modern games?

[DaveMMR]

Once you beat Mario Bros 3 are you really going to go back since you know where the turtle spawns and where the mushrooms are?

Hells ya!  I used to play SMB3 constantly as a kid and would often spend my summer months staying up all night to try and beat it without warping.  Recently, we downloaded it for the Wii's VC and the girlfriend and I tried to get through all the levels.  It's a lot tougher than I remember, having been coddled by the easier Super Mario World, et al. 

[Dartful Dodger]

I'm pretty sure that Dartful isn't actually serious, but regardless, that's pretty ---smurfing--- funny.

Unfortunately I’m serious. I can spend hours repeating these scenarios.  When I do have to turn the game off I'm pist at myself because the whole point of playing like this was to 'kill' a few minutes before going to bed, because I thought it was too late at night to start/finish a mission.

I don't want to save a mission with a cheat activated so I wait until after I've failed a mission before dialing a cheat.  I don't know my best friends' phone numbers, but I know the cheats for weapons, a motorcycle, and the helicopter by heart.  I have to refer to a print out for the boat and FIB car cheats, so I can still tell myself I don't have a problem.

[hypernova]

I don't know my best friends' phone numbers, but I know the cheats for weapons, a motorcycle, and the helicopter by heart.

Sure...you don't "know" your friends' numbers...

You need friends first.

Another Halo example being when I play through countless times just for the Maw, Truth and Reconciliation, and the Silent Cartographer.

What about AOTCR?  Those are all some sweet ass levels

[Dartful Dodger]

I don't know my best friends' phone numbers, but I know the cheats for weapons, a motorcycle, and the helicopter by heart.

Sure...you don't "know" your friends' numbers...

You need friends first.

What's even scarier is I had to visualize that fake cell phone in the corner, because I didn't even know the numbers.  I had memorized the pattern of up, down, left, right on the d pad.

[shmokes]

There's a story?

I haven't played GTA IV, but San Andreas had one of the most compelling stories of any video game I've ever played.  The writing is some of the best you'll see anywhere short of a Tim Schafer game (Psychonaughts, Grim Fandango, Full Throttle, etc.).  9 times out of 10 it is the people who do nothing in a GTA game but commit random acts of violence who claim that it is shallow and boring.  Start into the story and it will suck you in like few other videogames can. 

BTW, Vice City was also brilliantly written, I just think it wasn't quite as good as San Andreas.  I never really played GTA III so I can't really comment on it.

From the reviews that I've read, though, GTA IV apparently has by far the most sophisticated story of the lot and maintains the high quality of writing the series is known for. 

[SithMaster]

That's not really the same now is it. Seriously, have you played any modern games?

No I haven't actually.

What's your definition of modern exactly?  The last games I played were Halo 3 and FEAR.  I can't say I'll definitely play FEAR more than once, but I can play Halo games everyday for a year and still have fun.  Yes it gets repetitive but then again so does going through the same maze, avoiding the same ghosts, getting the same pellet, using the same movement pattern to get the high score.

I guess you can find a challenge in them still though. Just like some people see it as a challenge how many movies they can watch in succession.

Are these people paying attention to the movie or just staring at the screen?

I don't know my best friends' phone numbers, but I know the cheats for weapons, a motorcycle, and the helicopter by heart.

Sure...you don't "know" your friends' numbers...

You need friends first.

Another Halo example being when I play through countless times just for the Maw, Truth and Reconciliation, and the Silent Cartographer.

What about AOTCR?  Those are all some sweet ass levels

It was epic.  I should play through again this weekend or something.

[NipRing]

Phew! This was a long thread to read. I'm surprised no one mentioned the "Super 160GB" PS3.....that also will not have backward compatibility. FAIL
And as for the person who was talking about that last game i bought for my ps2 isnt as good as the last game i bought for my ps3...God of War II > Heavenly Sword.

M$ hasnt exactly been overflowing their BC list in the last year either. In fact i've heard plenty of rumors that the last update (nov 07) was indeed the last update. Sad really. But because they didnt include BC as built in hardware they wont be chastised for dropping their support of it (but they're Xbox Originals list just keeps growing though  )

[SithMaster]

Phew! This was a long thread to read. I'm surprised no one mentioned the "Super 160GB" PS3.....that also will not have backward compatibility. FAIL
And as for the person who was talking about that last game i bought for my ps2 isnt as good as the last game i bought for my ps3...God of War II > Heavenly Sword.

M$ hasnt exactly been overflowing their BC list in the last year either. In fact i've heard plenty of rumors that the last update (nov 07) was indeed the last update. Sad really. But because they didnt include BC as built in hardware they wont be chastised for dropping their support of it (but they're Xbox Originals list just keeps growing though  )

M$ only gave us a 20gb hard drive though and that was pretty bad in their grand scheme of downloading Xbox originals.  Then they were charging 100 dollars for a 20gb if you bought it separately.

I haven't looked at the backwards compatibility list but I'm guessing they built support for the titles they though would do well and stopped there.

[shmokes]

because they didnt include BC as built in hardware they wont be chastised for dropping their support of it 

Dropping backward compatibility is dropping backward compatibility, I don't care how you were delivering it.  Whether you drop it in software or drop it in hardware, you're dropping it either way.

The difference between Xbox 360 and PS3 is that future purchasers of the Xbox 360 will still get the same partial (but still fairly comprehensive, from what I understand) backward compatibility that everyone else has.  New PS3 owners get zero backward compatibility.  That's what's effed up. 

[patrickl]

You can still play those PS1 classics on it though 

[DaveMMR]

You can still play those PS1 classics on it though 

Woo-Hoo!  Crash Bandicoot: Warped!!

[NipRing]

because they didnt include BC as built in hardware they wont be chastised for dropping their support of it 

Dropping backward compatibility is dropping backward compatibility, I don't care how you were delivering it.  Whether you drop it in software or drop it in hardware, you're dropping it either way.

The difference between Xbox 360 and PS3 is that future purchasers of the Xbox 360 will still get the same partial (but still fairly comprehensive, from what I understand) backward compatibility that everyone else has.  New PS3 owners get zero backward compatibility.  That's what's effed up. 

I agree completely. But with MS, they conveniently never put out a statement about whether or not they are still supporting the BC  list or if they're done with it all together. This way they avoid any bad press. I'm glad they did what they did, but i still have a few games i'd like to see on that list. As far as sony pulling their BC, if it is (was) software enabled I dont see how they are losing out.

Slightly off topic, I wonder if people have fully grasped the bigger picture of digital downloads. For example,  in the very near future it seems games, full games, will be going the route of digital download. I'm betting its going to be marketed as cheaper (less cost to physically produce),  more convenient, and if you delete it by accident you can just DL it again. But what about when you're tired of it? Plenty of people like to buy-conquer-resell-buy new game. Not with digital, its your forever. What about 2 console cycles from now? Will the xbox 1440 play my megaman 9? Dam well better.  I own 2 360s, one for me, one for my wife. We play rockband on her xbox. We have downloaded lots and lots of tracks for RB and RB2. But when she wants to play Viva Pinata and i want to take RB upstairs to play on my 360...no DLC for me. Even though we own both xbox's, live in the same house, we're married, and the money that paid for ALL the DLC came from our checking account, the same account that bought both 360 brand new and pays our Xbox Live account. Remember when you could take your favorite game over to a friends house? Cant do that with Digital DLs, your friend better have his own copy if you want to play there (even if that friend is your own wife). At the rate people are buying the DL content, when most realise it, its gonna be too late. 

  OK, i'm done.

I need a Whopper