-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Gran Turismo 4 Mobile to be PS2 port
- Thread starter Wario64
- Start date
Die Squirrel Die
Member
tenchir said:
Maybe you should get glasses. Headaches can be a sign of eye problems and it would also explain your difficulty reading because I never said that GT4Mobile wasn't a port, I only questioned your evidence that it would be a direct port and therefore go against Sony's 'no direct ports' policy (and not the fabricated 'no ports whatsoever' policy).
Die Squirrel Die said:
My evidence??? The evidence is from a company who had direct contact with Sony!!! Read the damn PSP.IGN.COM article. As for straight port or not, the article is about Yamuchi interview's about GT4!!!! EVERYTHING IS IN THE ARTICLE!! You are the one who needs the reading glasses. Who was the one who said
This sound's like someone WHO DIDN'T EVEN READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE before giving their opinion. Yamuchi basically said it's a port!
Gran Turismo 4 Mobile for the PSP will essentially be a port of the PlayStation 2 Gran Turismo 4, said series producer Kazunori Yamauchi in an interview featured on Sony's official Japanese PlayStation Web site.
This could mean a straight port or or a port with different content. But when Yamuchi also said:
In the interview, Yamauchi states that he plans to keep the same amount of content on the PSP version, but the developers at Polyphony Digital are determining what needs to be done to the PS2 version to make it playable on the handheld.
It's basically a straight port if they did want they wanted.
Screw this, I am going to play SocomII.
Spectral Glider
Member
Wario64 said:
Thanks, that one is a better description of the interview.
Die Squirrel Die
Member
tenchir said:
I've demonstrated why Yamauchi's quotes are not clear. But fine answer me this. What does he mean by 'game system'? Are you honestly trying to tell me that that is completely clear in what it means? Are you honestly saying that it couldn't possibly mean any level of things from the entire game content for content or just the graphics engine or just the physics engine or both or maybe parts of both to varying degrees. It could have absolutely nothing to with the game content (which is what would determine whether the port was direct or not) or could have everything to do with content. And why not just 'same content' rather than 'same amount of content'. The former being unambigious the latter being open to different interpretations.
The problem here is that YOU didn't properly read what Sony said about ports and fabricated in your head a blanket no ports policy with which to scrutinise and troll GT4M.
I have not once in this thread said that GT4M wouldn't be a port. What I have done is correctly point out that it being a port does not mean that Sony have gone against their own police. Don't blame me because you tried and failed to turn a No Ports Policy into the new Toy Story graphics.
Scoobert said:
I don't think this is true at all. I actually believe PSP is marketed towards a new segment of the non-players market. Sony wants PSP to be the PlayStation of the portable market, and this means bringing in those that weren't interested in *portable gaming* (not in gaming as a whole).
PSP in really an extension of the PS to my eyes.
Die Squirrel Die said:
It's a straight port from the mouth of Yamuchi. How does that not go against Sony own policy of no ports? No where in the article is it stated that it will have something that will differentiate it from PS2 ports.
Edit: Crap, I can't play Socom II and post at the same time. See ya.
Die Squirrel Die
Member
tenchir said:
But Yamauchi doesn't say it's a straight port. If you are talking about this...
In the interview, Yamauchi states that he plans to keep the same amount of content on the PSP version, but the developers at Polyphony Digital are determining what needs to be done to the PS2 version to make it playable on the handheld.
...'same amount of content' isn't the same thing as having the same content.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
Holy shit people. One of the best and most complex driving games ever made is going to be ported flawlessly to a handheld, and some of you have a heart to bitch about it. Just what kinds of stuck up crazy ass thinking drives you to do that?
Die Squirrel Die
Member
tenchir said:
Any number of things. In fact I'd say that the 'playable' comment edges the implication more towards gameplay, ie. physics, AI etc. rather than content.
Die Squirrel Die said:
Lol, you are really stretching it there buddy. There's a couple of things wrong with that, from the statement:
Yamauchi states that he plans to keep the same amount of content on the PSP version, but the developers at Polyphony Digital are determining what needs to be done to the PS2 version to make it playable on the handheld.
First, same content and determining what's need to be done on PS2 are linked, they are not in seperate sentence. Second, why would you need to change gameplay, it has to pretty pretty drastic change to make it not a port.
Edit: Does AI/Physic even count as content?
T-1000_Model3
Banned
stupid board
Well that's part of it, but I would say that by far the biggest thing that gets ported over is the content - cars/stages etc.
You don't seriously think they will create 800 completely new cars just so they won't be accused of "porting"...
Though I would expect some original content to be added too, if nothing else to diferentiate the product.
Die Squirrel Die
Member
tenchir said:
You accuse me of stretching and yet your first point is that because they are in the same sentence they are undoubtedly about exactly the same thing. That has got to be the most primary school level of language analysis I seen on this forum yet. Do you know nothing of compound sentences, particularly where the conjunction is 'but'?
And they could need to change the gameplay in order to fit the PSP's specs. The PSP may not be capable of handling the same amount of physics data as the PS2, or it may handle it in a different way. And what is more related to keeping a game as 'playable', having the same cars or having those cars control in the same way?
And finally, once again, for your reading impaired self, I have never said that GT4M isn't a port, just that it may not be a direct port. Go back and read the article you posted about Sony's policy regarding 'direct ports', think about what that means then come back to it.
Die Squirrel Die said:
You probably have the mostly narrow definition for direct port ever. It's not enough that both version will probably have the same numbers of cars and tracks(identical cars and tracks too), but they have to have the same Physic/AI in order to be considered a direct port?
Die Squirrel Die
Member
Fafalada said:
No I don't seriously expect that they would create 800 new cars and I never said I did. What I said was that nothing in Yamauchi's quotes absolutely locks down that content for content GT4M will be identical.
Sony's policy is no direct ports and as yet GT4M is unconfirmed to go one way or the other. That is what I have said from the beginning, why people have problems understanding that I don't know.
Well you know - one Could take car graphics, stage graphics, switch the view to overhead and change physics to matchbox vehicles and voila - a new SuperCars game.
Could you honestly still call that a GT port?
Fair enough, but you know that 1st party games don't follow the same rules as others do... They don't have to go through SCEA concept approval like every other game for instance...
Fafalada said:Well you know - one Could take car graphics, stage graphics, switch the view to overhead and change physics to matchbox vehicles and voila - a new SuperCars game.
Could you honestly still call that a GT port?
Not a direct port, if at all since you basically changed the graphics and gameplay drastically. I don't really care about game engine since you can't use the same engine(I meant the codes behind the engines) for each sytems.
Would you say that GT4M is not be a direct port of PS2 GT4 if it's Physic/AI is slightly different? What's your perfect example of a direct port? If we all have that narrow definition, then Tekken 4/5 for PS2 isn't a direct port of the arcade, or any of Sega's arcade port for GC/PS2/XBOX/DC that matter.
No that's not what I said, I said you can make a completely different game by reusing(porting if you will) graphics content.
If you want my opinion on what is likely to happen - GT4M physics will probably be for all practical purposes identical to GT4. But I don't think it'll be a straight copy of GT4 in terms of game options etc etc.
Fafalada said:
Let's say if there's no online option in GT4M and there is in GT4, is that enough to consider it's not a direct port and why can't PSP do it, just for example.
Like I said before, are any of these considered not direct ports?
Arcade Tekkens > PS2
Arcade Virtual Fighters > PS2/DC
Arcade Mortal Kombat > SNES/Genesis/etc.
etc......
Better yet, let's say if the game had some extra's like costume and tracks, is it enough to considered it not a direct port?(DC Dead or Alive 2 > PS2 Dead or Alive 2 assuming Dead or Alive 2LE doesn't exist?)
SolidSnakex
Member
Marconelly said:
Well you've gotta find something to complain about. Originally it was that they could complain about Sony telling lies about how the PSP could push PS2 quality graphics. Now that it's proven to be true, they've gotta find something else.
Grizzlyjin
Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
SolidSnakex said:
Of course, we wouldn't have game forums if there wasn't something to complain about.
SolidSnakex
Member
tenchir said:
Well people said it wouldn't even get close to PS2 graphics and would be lucky to be at mid level DC graphics. There was even one guy who claimed that the PSP wouldn't be able to have graphics any better than Death Jr since he believed that Sony wouldn't let another company show there game unless it represented the real graphics quality of the system.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
"I don't get it. What's the problem with having two versions of the same game available on the market? No one forces you to buy both and it's not like *all* PSP game are gonna be ports."
I dunno - do you not see how this is potentially a perception problem for Sony? I'm personally looking forward to the PSP because i -can- affort to blow cash on playing the same games i can play at home on the go. For me that's a big thing. But what i'm getting at is, if they are going to go down the port route , then they are basically going to be appealing to the PS2 userbase. As you say, no one forces you to buy both, so if i already own a playstation then the only advantage in investing a sizable amount of cash in PSP is for portability of the same games i may already have (or plan to have) at home.
I dunno - do you not see how this is potentially a perception problem for Sony? I'm personally looking forward to the PSP because i -can- affort to blow cash on playing the same games i can play at home on the go. For me that's a big thing. But what i'm getting at is, if they are going to go down the port route , then they are basically going to be appealing to the PS2 userbase. As you say, no one forces you to buy both, so if i already own a playstation then the only advantage in investing a sizable amount of cash in PSP is for portability of the same games i may already have (or plan to have) at home.
SolidSnakex
Member
DCharlie said:
All systems are going to have ports though. I think most people actually realise this, it's the people who have it out for the PSP that are making it out like that's all the system will have. It's not at all a big deal that the system is going to have ports, and it won't hurt the system either.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
"All systems are going to have ports though."
of course - but ports where you are going to have two identical games running on different hardware? I get what you are saying, and as i say , it's a -perception- issue for sony, not a slight at their hardware (which i'm extremely excited about).
"I think most people actually realise this, it's the people who have it out for the PSP that are making it out like that's all the system will have. It's not at all a big deal that the system is going to have ports, and it won't hurt the system either."
For me , this isn't really an issue that consumers have to worry about as such. Those that want the PSP have already made up their mind. Issues such as battery life , the screen, and price are actual concerns, but hell... no use speculating now , we should know the details in approximately 5 weeks time (TGS and (rumoured) preorder details at Tsutaya)
of course - but ports where you are going to have two identical games running on different hardware? I get what you are saying, and as i say , it's a -perception- issue for sony, not a slight at their hardware (which i'm extremely excited about).
"I think most people actually realise this, it's the people who have it out for the PSP that are making it out like that's all the system will have. It's not at all a big deal that the system is going to have ports, and it won't hurt the system either."
For me , this isn't really an issue that consumers have to worry about as such. Those that want the PSP have already made up their mind. Issues such as battery life , the screen, and price are actual concerns, but hell... no use speculating now , we should know the details in approximately 5 weeks time (TGS and (rumoured) preorder details at Tsutaya)
Um...What the hell is the big fuss over if something is a direct port or not or if Sony is allowing direct ports? I say fuck it leave it up to the developer and publisher to decide if they want to make a direct port or not. Why does something always have to be so godamn special.
SolidSnakex
Member
DCharlie said:
Well having certain games that are the same running on different hardware might not be a bad thing for some. Take a car fan, he can now take his save and GT4 to work with him or to whereever he's going, same with a fan of sports games. Then come home and put his save back in his console GT4 and start right up. It's not like every game is going to be a port on the system, there are going to be those built completely from the ground up on the PSP. I just don't see what the big deal is. There are lots of ports on the DS too, and even alot that people are going wild over (OMG! the possiblity of playing CT on the DS!! WOWOW!). But are those ok because insteadof pausing and going into a menu you'll now being able to just pick up your stylus and pick the option you want? There seems to be a double standard on ports with these 2 systems, one it seems to be ok with the other its going to hurt for some reason.
The ports argument always comes across as lopsided. It's typically made in a vaccuum that ignores the original content that's in development right alongside the "ports". It's certainly justifiable to be concerned that a game library may get too overloaded with ports but if you put aside the original content to do that, you're not exactly presenting the issue accurately.
Meanwhile, we've got this debate raging over whether Sony is an adulterer to their "No Direct Ports" policy. But we don't know when GT4 PSP is likely to arrive in retail (doesn't sound like anytime soon - certainly not launch period), we don't know how long SCE intends to keep the NDP policy in effect and we don't know what Polyphony might try to layer on top of the GT4 PSP experience that goes above and beyond the PS2 experience. So far, we know that Yamauchi is aiming to port as many of the GT4 systems and content as he can but there's also a number of ways he can take advantage of PSP features to do things not so easily done on the PS2 - adhoc wireless multiplayer, wireless transactions, larger save files because the PSP isn't limited to 8 meg memory cards, custom soundtracks, etc. - and of course there's possibility to just add new cars and tracks, much like has been done with the special editions of the GT series that have shown up around the globe in recent years.
If you were Sony how would you port GT4 to the PSP while adhering to the NDP policy? Not do it all? Add features? Remove Features? If so, what?
Meanwhile, we've got this debate raging over whether Sony is an adulterer to their "No Direct Ports" policy. But we don't know when GT4 PSP is likely to arrive in retail (doesn't sound like anytime soon - certainly not launch period), we don't know how long SCE intends to keep the NDP policy in effect and we don't know what Polyphony might try to layer on top of the GT4 PSP experience that goes above and beyond the PS2 experience. So far, we know that Yamauchi is aiming to port as many of the GT4 systems and content as he can but there's also a number of ways he can take advantage of PSP features to do things not so easily done on the PS2 - adhoc wireless multiplayer, wireless transactions, larger save files because the PSP isn't limited to 8 meg memory cards, custom soundtracks, etc. - and of course there's possibility to just add new cars and tracks, much like has been done with the special editions of the GT series that have shown up around the globe in recent years.
If you were Sony how would you port GT4 to the PSP while adhering to the NDP policy? Not do it all? Add features? Remove Features? If so, what?
T-1000_Model3
Banned
I'm not sure but....isn't there a Mario DS game that looks allot like the N64 game? Why would people complain about GT4 being a port then?
Besides,these two handhelds aren't gonna be the greatest come launch,its going to take time for both of them to gain a foothold on the software side of things.
If youre gonna buy one(or both)at launch then ports are to be expected,hell expect them throughout the lifetime of both really.
Especailly since the PSP and DS are based off hardware thats been already released. Its easy to see why 3rd partys are in love with handhelds.
Besides,these two handhelds aren't gonna be the greatest come launch,its going to take time for both of them to gain a foothold on the software side of things.
If youre gonna buy one(or both)at launch then ports are to be expected,hell expect them throughout the lifetime of both really.
Especailly since the PSP and DS are based off hardware thats been already released. Its easy to see why 3rd partys are in love with handhelds.
Neutron Night
Banned
Sony should never have made the "no ports" claim in the first place. There's no justification for designing new content for deliberately inferior hardware. Satisfy the portable people and make some extra bucks by tossing them a few ports of old crap. It's not like people who play portable systems have particularly high standards, anyway.
Let's keep the focus on the future and the next-gen systems, where it belongs. Every ounce of effort directed towards the PSP could be used to produce something much better on the PS3, instead. If games like this GT4 Mobile interfere with GT5 or similar high-end projects, the entire game industry is brought down as a result.
Let's keep the focus on the future and the next-gen systems, where it belongs. Every ounce of effort directed towards the PSP could be used to produce something much better on the PS3, instead. If games like this GT4 Mobile interfere with GT5 or similar high-end projects, the entire game industry is brought down as a result.
AlphaSnake
...and that, kids, was the first time I sucked a dick for crack
I don't even remember when Sony made this "no ports" claim everyone is talking about. Can we get some primary sources up in this bitch, please?
AlphaSnake said:
Quick google search on "playstation portable direct ports"
http://portables.about.com/b/a/092538.htm
http://psp.ign.com/articles/523/523360p1.html
Neutron Night:
The PSP isn't "deliberately inferior" hardware. A number of developers indicate that it at least achieves parity in many ways with the PSP and in some ways exceeds it. It's also got built-in wireless networking and a much higher capacity removable, rewritable storage solution, neither of which are incorporated in most PS2s.
And the claim isn't "no ports", its no _direct_ ports, as far as anyone knows. If a dev was going to take the time to port a game anyway, I doubt a few extra features to distinguish the port would entail a huge extra drain on their resources.
The PSP isn't "deliberately inferior" hardware. A number of developers indicate that it at least achieves parity in many ways with the PSP and in some ways exceeds it. It's also got built-in wireless networking and a much higher capacity removable, rewritable storage solution, neither of which are incorporated in most PS2s.
And the claim isn't "no ports", its no _direct_ ports, as far as anyone knows. If a dev was going to take the time to port a game anyway, I doubt a few extra features to distinguish the port would entail a huge extra drain on their resources.
DCharlie said:
As I said in my previous post:
"I don't think this is true at all. I actually believe PSP is marketed towards a new segment of the non-players market. Sony wants PSP to be the PlayStation of the portable market, and this means bringing in those that weren't interested in *portable gaming* (not in gaming as a whole)."
Think of it this way: you have heard about GT4 and how cool it is but you don't have a PS2 'cos you don't have time to play at home and don't want to invest money in something that will just stay there collecting dust. Then, the PSP is released. You can play with it everywhere and, wow, you got a perfect replica of that cool GT4 game you have heard about.
I think this is where Sony is aiming making PSP as close as possible to PS2 in order to ease the porting process. As a software house, you want to reach as much audience as possible don't you? With little effort you got your console game handed towards those not interested in domestic consoles. Obviously that's not the only target as much as PlayStation1 target wasn't just those that never got into videogaming or that got into it when they where kids and then abandoned it.
For this people, it makes sense for Sony to release as close as possible PS2-to-PSP ports. But then again, these people are not the only target, and you cannot control creativity. So we will see a healthy stream of original content too.
kaching said:
It's definitely inferior hardware if you were to try to make it do the same work as the PS2. Since the PSP graphics only needs to be developed on a much smaller screen, it wouldn't require much "horse power" as much and since the textures are lower res, the texture size are exponentially smaller. So with these in mind, you could get graphics that would matched PS2 if it outputs on small screens.
Again, what constitutes a direct port? And give examples of them. Seems some people have very narrow definition of direct port. And since when is the term direct port and port became so different?
TTP said:Spider-Man 2: The Movie is a direct port I guess
I am going to assume you are not kidding.
What is it a direct port of? Isn't there different extras for each platform? If you are going to use that defintiion, then basically direct ports are whole game with few difference(extras), wouldn't apply to nearly all "ports".SolidSnakex
Member
tenchir said:
A direct port is a game that's the same on every system. There might be some slight sound and graphic differences, but the basic game is exactly the same. You aren't going to find any extras in a direct port. Now a port could have extra characters, weapons, cars, courses ect.
SolidSnakex
Member
tenchir said:
Sports games. They for the most part are all direct ports.
TTP said:
Bingo, that's my definition of direct ports or basically ANY ports. It's the same game even if it had extra's. This is my definition of direct ports since I have read it often in reviews of ports(GBA for example had a lot direct ports with extra's mentioned in reviews).
See what I mean here? This whole time I am arguing about Sony doing a 180 on their No Port policy, even "No Direct Ports" and we have people arguing that adding extra doesn't count as direct port and therefore doesn't violate their policy.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
Just to clarify - i'm personally HAPPY that we'll get all these ports to the PSP! For me that's what makes me want to get it - VF4 on the go, GT4 on the go, WE8 on the go - etc etc...
"Think of it this way: you have heard about GT4 and how cool it is but you don't have a PS2 'cos you don't have time to play at home and don't want to invest money in something that will just stay there collecting dust. Then, the PSP is released. You can play with it everywhere and, wow, you got a perfect replica of that cool GT4 game you have heard about"
Yes, i get that. But they can't just be aiming for that market alone, because i don't think people would pay that price and there aren't enough of them to sustain the launch.
"If you were Sony how would you port GT4 to the PSP while adhering to the NDP policy? Not do it all? Add features? Remove Features? If so, what?"
I'd actually be pushing the port aspect more personally. I documented this ages ago when i said they should push the play-at-home-continue-on-the-go aspect.
I personally think that Sony is actually targetting the adult gamer with cash to burn - ie: those with Ps2s who long for those sort of games on the go, at least initially.
As for original content, so far i haven't really seen much of anything to make a comment, but i'm interested in MG:Acid if the similar-to-Xcom rumours are true.
Sony on ports : they didn't say NO PORTS. I don't have a link , but i recall that they wanted to keep below a certain percentage of ports.
"Think of it this way: you have heard about GT4 and how cool it is but you don't have a PS2 'cos you don't have time to play at home and don't want to invest money in something that will just stay there collecting dust. Then, the PSP is released. You can play with it everywhere and, wow, you got a perfect replica of that cool GT4 game you have heard about"
Yes, i get that. But they can't just be aiming for that market alone, because i don't think people would pay that price and there aren't enough of them to sustain the launch.
"If you were Sony how would you port GT4 to the PSP while adhering to the NDP policy? Not do it all? Add features? Remove Features? If so, what?"
I'd actually be pushing the port aspect more personally. I documented this ages ago when i said they should push the play-at-home-continue-on-the-go aspect.
I personally think that Sony is actually targetting the adult gamer with cash to burn - ie: those with Ps2s who long for those sort of games on the go, at least initially.
As for original content, so far i haven't really seen much of anything to make a comment, but i'm interested in MG:Acid if the similar-to-Xcom rumours are true.
Sony on ports : they didn't say NO PORTS. I don't have a link , but i recall that they wanted to keep below a certain percentage of ports.