Support NeoGAF

[SolidSnakex]

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.

That's how Sony is getting around it. As long as you add something different to the game, its no longer a direct port. Sony just doesn't want companies taking a PS2 game and slapping it onto the PSP with no additions.

 

[tenchir]

That's how Sony is getting around it. As long as you add something different to the game, its no longer a direct port. Sony just doesn't want companies taking a PS2 game and slapping it onto the PSP with no additions.

That depends on your definition of direct ports. I seen articles/reviews that said direct ports even though the game had extra's that were not in the original. Seriously, going by that narrow definition, there is hardly any direct ports at all for the current generations or even last generations.

It's stupid really. It's those dumb arguments like are you really cheating if no one catches you?

 

[SolidSnakex]

That depends on your definition of direct ports. I seen articles/reviews that said direct ports even though the game had extra's that were not in the original. Seriously, going by that narrow definition, there is hardly any direct ports at all for the current generations or even last generations.

Consider Sony's stance on "direct ports" and the fact that GT4 is being ported. I think it's obvious that their view is that if you add some new to the game, a course, a car ect. it's no longer a direct port. It's an easy way of them getting around the statement. Some people took it as there being no games at all being ported to the PSP, but that never was Sony intention.

 

[TTP]

Yes, i get that. But they can't just be aiming for that market alone,

Of course. That's why I wrote (damn, DCharlie, read my posts! ): "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."

because i don't think people would pay that price and there aren't enough of them to sustain the launch.

Of course (2), as well as there weren't enough of them to sustain the launch of PlayStation1. Yet we all know what the PS1 eventually achieved.

 

[tenchir]

Consider Sony's stance on "direct ports" and the fact that GT4 is being ported. I think it's obvious that their view is that if you add some new to the game, a course, a car ect. it's no longer a direct port. It's an easy way of them getting around the statement.

That view is pretty pointless AND misleading, like I said before, there aren't much(if at all) direct ports of games in this generation or previous generations. And direct ports have been referred to games with extra's before. Again, can you think of any games that you considered are direct ports? This generation?

 

[DCharlie]

"Of course. That's why I wrote (damn, DCharlie, read my posts! ): "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.""

ha ha - sorry man, trying to arrange a drinking night out at the same time as surfing...

multitasking isn't my strong point...
neither is single tasking, but hey!

Can't wait to get my hands on the PSP, hopefully at TGS.

 

[SolidSnakex]

"That view is pretty pointless AND misleading"

It's very misleading, I think some people knew what Sony meant when they said "no direct ports" though. It wasn't that GT4 couldn't be ported to the system, it was that GT4 couldn't be the exact same game on both systems. If there are extras in GT4P, it's no longer the exact same game so its not a direct port.

 

[tenchir]

"That view is pretty pointless AND misleading"

It's very misleading, I think some people knew what Sony meant when they said "no direct ports" though. It wasn't that GT4 couldn't be ported to the system, it was that GT4 couldn't be the exact same game on both systems. If there are extras in GT4P, it's no longer the exact same game so its not a direct port.

Again, can you think of any games in the current gen that are direct port in Sony's view? I want to see some example before I even considered direct port =/ port. You can use GBA games as example too if you want, but we are talking about Sony games though since it seems they had some direct ports......

 

[SolidSnakex]

Like I said earlier, sports games in general are direct ports. You can play one on a certain system then play the same one on another and you won't find any differences. No new plays, new players ect. It's the same game so it's a direct port.

I'm pretty sure MK5 were direct ports too as they were all the same game on every system. No extra characters, stages ect.

 

[kaching]

It's definitely inferior hardware if you were to try to make it do the same work as the PS2.

Depends on the work - some developers seem to think that, for some work, the PSP would come out ahead of the PS2.

It's not "inferior hardware" that can manage to so closely approximate or better the PS2 in a portable form that probably has no more than a quarter of the volume of the PS2 available to it, also manage to stuff in a sizable screen, almost identical controls and wireless networking. You need more advanced hardware design to do that. If you can squeeze the innards of a PS2 into the PSP formfactor, get the same battery life but with better technical performance than the PSP hardware, then you'd have a point. Until that day, this is just portable bigotry

As for the ongoing crusade to catch Sony in a bit of hypocrisy, it's all well and good that you want people to be exact in their definitions of port and direct port, but it's interesting that you aren't so concerned about exactness in relation to what exactly the port policy is. So far, what we think we know has all been filtered through 3rd parties, which is hardly sufficient to indict them for hypocrisy.

 

[tenchir]

Like I said earlier, sports games in general are direct ports. You can play one on a certain system then play the same one on another and you won't find any differences. No new plays, new players ect. It's the same game so it's a direct port.

Let's think on this for a second. After the first year of the sports game for PSP, we get "another" direct port of the same game in your view. That pretty much defeat your view about direct ports on PSP right?

I'm pretty sure MK5 were direct ports too as they were all the same game on every system. No extra characters, stages ect.

Now consider how long it took you to think of this example. There really isn't enough example of this direct port to say "No Direct Ports." If we go by what IGN reported, even they don't understand the exact term of direct port, since it's obvious they use it interchangeable with port. Just changing to widescreen view for GT4M even if everything else is identical is considered not a direct port to Sony.

 

[tenchir]

Depends on the work - some developers seem to think that, for some work, the PSP would come out ahead of the PS2.

It's not "inferior hardware" that can manage to so closely approximate or better the PS2 in a portable form that probably has no more than a quarter of the volume of the PS2 available to it, also manage to stuff in a sizable screen, almost identical controls and wireless networking. You need more advanced hardware design to do that. If you can squeeze the innards of a PS2 into the PSP formfactor, get the same battery life but with better technical performance than the PSP hardware, then you'd have a point. Until that day, this is just portable bigotry

When you say fitting PS2 into PSP form factor, you are saying the PSP will do the same workload as the PS2 which is not what I said. I said it's inferior hardware if you were to make it do the same workload as the PS2. If you were to make the PSP to the work of MGS3 in it's native resolution and same textures/etc....., it wouldn't be able to do it at all....ever. But it has a good chance to reproduce(or relatively close) it visually if you were do it at low resolution(small screen = lesser processing) with low textures you wouldn't noticed much different at all because it's all on a small screen.

As for the ongoing crusade to catch Sony in a bit of hypocrisy, it's all well and good that you want people to be exact in their definitions of port and direct port, but it's interesting that you aren't so concerned about exactness in relation to what exactly the port policy is. So far, what we think we know has all been filtered through 3rd parties, which is hardly sufficient to indict them for hypocrisy.

It was a big deal when IGN first reported which till to this day they haven't refute(I am still waiting for that link DCChalie). As a matter of fact, IGN is still reporting the same Sony's No Port policy when they talked about GT4M. Someone from Sony would have said it is false by now don't you think?

I think I will stop posting a lot now since we really can't go any farther in this argument, because we definitely have two definition of direct ports and No Ports policy that Sony haven't discussed yet.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Let's think on this for a second. After the first year of the sports game for PSP, we get "another" direct port of the same game in your view. That pretty much defeat your view about direct ports on PSP right?



Now consider how long it took you to think of this example. There really isn't enough example of this direct port to say "No Direct Ports." If we go by what IGN reported, even they don't understand the exact term of direct port, since it's obvious they use it interchangeable with port. Just changing to widescreen view for GT4M even if everything else is identical is considered not a direct port to Sony.

Who said that the PSP ports of sports games were going to be exactly the same? They could add in some sort of connectivity that'd mean that it's no longer a direct port.

There's no real definition for what a direct port is, but it's obvious as to what Sony's definition of it is. If you add something to a game, it's no longer a direct port. That might be something that you don't like or don't agree with but that's how they're viewing it.

 

[tenchir]

There's no real definition for what a direct port is, but it's obvious as to what Sony's definition of it is. If you add something to a game, it's no longer a direct port. That might be something that you don't like or don't agree with but that's how they're viewing it.

They haven't discussed anything yet about direct port. Even IGN who reported it doesn't know what their definition is. We don't even know if their definition of No Direct Port at the beginning also means all ports, but later changed it because of developers pressures.

Why bother saying No Direct Port at all if they take the narrow definition, when all it takes is one small change(widescreen or connectivity or extras). It will still be a port machine that Sony doesn't want it to be known for(even if it doesn't have any direct port by their definition). It's not as if a lot of developers make a lot of direct port in the first place, I bet you can list direct port on one hand only.

Think about it.

Guy #1: "It doesn't have any direct ports"
Guy #2: "But I see GT4M"
Guy #1: "It's not a direct port, it has connectivity!!"
Guy #2: "Then it's not a port machine!!"

Who the hell falls for that?

 

[kaching]

When you say fitting PS2 into PSP form factor, you are saying the PSP will do the same workload as the PS2 which is not what I said. I said it's inferior hardware if you were to make it do the same workload as the PS2.

My point was that you're not making a level playing field comparison here and you only seem to be willing to define inferior/superior hardware based on raw performance alone when there are several other factors that are important.

It was a big deal when IGN first reported which till to this day they haven't refute(I am still waiting for that link DCChalie). As a matter of fact, IGN is still reporting the same Sony's No Port policy when they talked about GT4M. Someone from Sony would have said it is false by now don't you think?

There's nothing to refute. The IGN article simpy quotes an unnamed developer and then goes on to speculate about what "no direct ports" might mean in this context. Interesting that the dev can corroborate the "no direct ports" policy but can't provide any clue as to what it means - what kind of definitive confirmation is that?. This is the kind of half-news that sites like IGN report on all the time, and it's hardly worth Sony's or Microsoft's or Nintendo's time to try to run damage control on these items.

 

[SolidSnakex]

"Who the hell falls for that?"

Going by this thread, quite a few people.

 

[tenchir]

My point was that you're not making a level playing field comparison here and you only seem to be willing to define inferior/superior hardware based on raw performance alone when there are several other factors that are important.

Fine, it's inferior hardware if you level the playing field.

There's nothing to refute. The IGN article simpy quotes an unnamed developer and then goes on to speculate about what "no direct ports" might mean in this context. Interesting that the dev can corroborate the "no direct ports" policy but can't provide any clue as to what it means - what kind of definitive confirmation is that?. This is the kind of half-news that sites like IGN report on all the time, and it's hardly worth Sony's or Microsoft's or Nintendo's time to try to run damage control on these items.

But IGN had quote the No Port Policy twice and it has so far have spread to other sites. They seem so sured of it. I myself think it's worthy enough for Sony themselves to comment on it if it's false since it has spread so far. As for the developer doesn't doesn't know the exact details of the policy, it could be that Sony still haven't define it themselves at the time, so they haven't given the developer information about it. The games are still in development so they don't have anything concrete yet concerning all their policies.

 

[kaching]

How do you level the playing field though, tenchir? You're trying to define the overall hardware design superiority based on raw performance. The PSP shares similar maximum poly output performance with the GC - each are about 33 million polys/sec, max. The raw poly output of the PS2 is measured at 66 million/sec, I believe. So does that make the GC inferior hardware to the PS2 as well? The PS2 has a higher fillrate than the Xbox - is the Xbox now inferior hardware?

Regarding the no port policy that IGN is so sure of, they are sure of only what their developer informant told them, who himself didn't know much. The rest is speculative:

...the company has been told by Sony that it will not approve direct ports of PS2 titles. How far the term "direct" can be extended is up in the air -- whether that means games without any additional content or PSP exclusive features, or it means no ports of any kind and that any franchise release would have to be a new edition of the series -- but it seems that Sony is standing firm on this issue.

Like I said - Half-news, thrown out to the internet for the blanks to be filled in, depending on your bias. Why no direct confirmation from Sony in this article? IGN doesn't even seem to have attempted to contact them with regard to this article, there's no mention of seeking Sony's confirmation on this, not even a mention of "No comment" on Sony's part.

That's a hell of a way to be "sure". That's the same kind of intelligence that still has us wondering where the WMDs are in Iraq...

Chasing stuff like this and attempting to correct it once its been unleashed on the Internet is like chasing after ghosts, or tilting at windmills. It's a futile effort. Do you even realize how often a big company like Sony is subject to unsubstantiated news reports like this on the Internet, or by any media outlet for that matter? Twisting the truth or reporting only half the facts is so much easier to do than to correct or retract misinformation once its been disseminated, esp. when media outlets tend not to like to make as big a deal out of the retractions/corrections as they do their "scoops".

 

[tenchir]

How do you level the playing field though, tenchir? You're trying to define the overall hardware design superiority based on raw performance. The PSP shares similar maximum poly output performance with the GC - each are about 33 million polys/sec, max. The raw poly output of the PS2 is measured at 66 million/sec, I believe. So does that make the GC inferior hardware to the PS2 as well? The PS2 has a higher fillrate than the Xbox - is the Xbox now inferior hardware?

Again, if you choose to level the playing field like that, the PSP will obvious be the inferior hardware. I am just saying that you shouldn't treat the PSP as if it was a console to be played on the television. I think it's pretty impressive that it could do PS2 graphics on a portable level. If it was played on the tiny screens it meant to be played, then they should be able to make graphics comparable to PS2. Look at Dreamcast games versus the PS2/XB/GC games, the dreamcast is obviously very inferior hardware, but at least it could do very good looking games that's hard to disginguish from the current 3 hardware games. I wasn't making excuse for the hardware, I am simply stating that it could do PS2 graphics, not that it is as powerful as a PS2.

Regarding the no port policy that IGN is so sure of, they are sure of only what their developer informant told them, who himself didn't know much. The rest is speculative:



Like I said - Half-news, thrown out to the internet for the blanks to be filled in, depending on your bias. Why no direct confirmation from Sony in this article? IGN doesn't even seem to have attempted to contact them with regard to this article, there's no mention of seeking Sony's confirmation on this, not even a mention of "No comment" on Sony's part.

That's a hell of a way to be "sure". That's the same kind of intelligence that still has us wondering where the WMDs are in Iraq...

Chasing stuff like this and attempting to correct it once its been unleashed on the Internet is like chasing after ghosts, or tilting at windmills. It's a futile effort. Do you even realize how often a big company like Sony is subject to unsubstantiated news reports like this on the Internet, or by any media outlet for that matter? Twisting the truth or reporting only half the facts is so much easier to do than to correct or retract misinformation once its been disseminated, esp. when media outlets tend not to like to make as big a deal out of the retractions/corrections as they do their "scoops".

First, IGN is the source of the policy, they would have tried and asked Sony about it and till now haven't received a response. It could be that Sony is still deciding on what could be considered ports, so they haven't replied back. Also, Sony doesn't need to contact every sites, they just need to contact one that everywhere else cited. They never said that this is a rumor, gossip, etc.... like it or not, they are a paid site so I doubt they would want to look like fools if it's not even true at all. Look at the ridicule they have gotten when they have made some mistakes in their reporting, they don't want to have to go through this again.

 

[AlphaSnake]

Quick google search on "playstation portable direct ports"

http://portables.about.com/b/a/092538.htm

http://psp.ign.com/articles/523/523360p1.html

Negative. That's a secondary source. I want to see where Sony said it. Otherwise, this is just another "Toy Story graphics".

Edit: Because don't forget, back then, according to the seconday sources "Toy Story graphics" were promised by Sony -- when Sony said no such thing...ever.

 

[Memles]

To summarize:

There is nothing wrong with GT4 BEING on PSP.
There is nothing wrong with Ports, from an enjoyment standpoint.
There is concern, however, that they're marketing PS2 Ports to people who own PS2s (From the Gamer's side of things; the non-gamer would be more liable to look at Music/Movies Capabilities)

Sony has a problem with avoiding this, because they don't want to keep PS2 Owners from buying a PSP, and the idea of "Continue on the Go" is a perfect way to do it. However, it will be a matter of whether or not they go that route, and the more ports there are, the more they will have to deal with it.

 

[tenchir]

Edit: Because don't forget, back then, according to the seconday sources "Toy Story graphics" were promised by Sony -- when Sony said no such thing...ever.

First, what was the source of PS2 toy story graphics? I can't seem to find it on google.

Edit: It seems to be spread by fanboys(based on it's performance spec at the time? 66 million poly, etc...) rather than videogame website being confirmed by industry people. There is a difference here unless you can find me a link.

 

[GDGF]

I don't mind seeing ports on the PSP at all. It's not like the PSP has any major features that differentiate it from a PS2, anyway (besides being portable for a few hours)

It's obvious that PSP is the console that you buy if you want to play the same old games, and same kinds of games you can on the PS2. If you want new gameplay experiences, just buy a Nintendo DS. No need to argue, really

 

[Gattsu25]

First, what was the source of PS2 toy story graphics? I can't seem to find it on google.

Edit: It seems to be spread by fanboys(based on it's performance spec at the time? 66 million poly, etc...) rather than videogame website being confirmed by industry people. There is no difference here

Fixed.

 

[open_mouth_]

OMG PORTSTATION POCKET!!

 

[AlphaSnake]

Tenchir: No difference. It was reported by a few websites, not just fanboys.

 

[tenchir]

Tenchir: No difference. It was reported by a few websites, not just fanboys.

What website talked about the Toy Story graphic? And was there any confirmation on it by people who started it? There is a difference. With the No Port policy, we have a developer who was told by people from Sony about it. I still haven't found the "PS2 toy story graphic" on google yet.

Edit: I see some results from posters who talked about PS2 toy story graphic, but have yet encountered the source of where it came from.

 

[Forsete]

I remember that Toy Story thing being mentioned in one of the very first PSM2 UK (Unofficial mag) issues.

 

[tenchir]

I remember that Toy Story thing being mentioned in one of the very first PSM2 UK (Unofficial mag) issues.

But you can't remember what it said? or how it came to that conclusion it can do toy story graphic?

 

[Forsete]

But you can't remember what it said? or how it came to that conclusion it can do toy story graphic?

IIRC it was about how future PS2 games "could" look.
I can have a look.

 

[tenchir]

IIRC it was about how future PS2 games "could" look.
I can have a look.

Then it still different from the No Port issue. We have something subjective like PS2 "could" do Toy Story graphics and we have something objective like Port/No Port Policy that is confirmed by a developer who had contact with Sony(as in if there is a port of no port policy).

 

[Forsete]

Ah, here is what it said, just a small part of the page.

Futurama
When can we expect mind-blowing PS2 visuals to match the graphical capabilities of bigger, faster computers?

[picture of Tekken 3 or Tekken Tag on the Arcade]
Arcade games? Now
PlayStation 2 already beats this - its chips will actually power the next batch of coin-ops.

[picture of the RR5 Intro-girl tech video]
The PS2 Demo? Now.
Look at the characters in Knockout Kings 2000. We're basically already there.

[Picture of some animated show (this is the one which I mistook for Toy Story, the quality is similar though)]
TV Graphics? Early 2001.
With minimal player interaction, the quality of shows like Reboot isn’t tricky.

[Picture of StarShip Troopers]
Movies? Late 2001.
Shortcuts and tricks will make the details of films like Starship Troopers just about possible on PS2.

Real Life? Never.
Well, maybe. Many developers think, by the time PlayStation 3 is ready, we'll be there. Don’t hold your breath, though.

Not quite Toy Story, but similar.

 

[tenchir]

I don't think the Toy Story thing was referring to this. And if it is, I don't see how it ended up like a confirmation or whatever that is on the net now.

 

[Chittagong]

Well this just about wraps it up for PSP.

 

[TAJ]

>>>>It's not "inferior hardware" that can manage to so closely approximate or better the PS2 in a portable form that probably has no more than a quarter of the volume of the PS2 available to it, also manage to stuff in a sizable screen, almost identical controls and wireless networking. You need more advanced hardware design to do that. If you can squeeze the innards of a PS2 into the PSP formfactor, get the same battery life but with better technical performance than the PSP hardware, then you'd have a point. Until that day, this is just portable bigotry


When you say fitting PS2 into PSP form factor, you are saying the PSP will do the same workload as the PS2 which is not what I said. I said it's inferior hardware if you were to make it do the same workload as the PS2. If you were to make the PSP to the work of MGS3 in it's native resolution and same textures/etc....., it wouldn't be able to do it at all....ever. But it has a good chance to reproduce(or relatively close) it visually if you were do it at low resolution(small screen = lesser processing) with low textures you wouldn't noticed much different at all because it's all on a small screen.<<<<

And tenchir manages to completely miss the point. PSP is absolutely state-of-the-art for a HAND-HELD DEVICE. Simply stated, it's easier to get performance from a larger device. Why do you think desktop PCs are so much more powerful than Pocket PCs? More and larger (meaning much higher transistor counts if you use the same process) processors are possible, and the larger the case, the easier it is to cool. Cooler= potential for higher clock speeds while maintaining stable operation. I'm sure Sony would have made a portable PS3 if they could, buts it's an absolute fucking impossibility for the next five years or more.
Nintendo aimed low technically and charged high (compared to costs) with all previous Gameboys. PSP appears to be the opposite.

 

[tenchir]

>>>>It's not "inferior hardware" that can manage to so closely approximate or better the PS2 in a portable form that probably has no more than a quarter of the volume of the PS2 available to it, also manage to stuff in a sizable screen, almost identical controls and wireless networking. You need more advanced hardware design to do that. If you can squeeze the innards of a PS2 into the PSP formfactor, get the same battery life but with better technical performance than the PSP hardware, then you'd have a point. Until that day, this is just portable bigotry


When you say fitting PS2 into PSP form factor, you are saying the PSP will do the same workload as the PS2 which is not what I said. I said it's inferior hardware if you were to make it do the same workload as the PS2. If you were to make the PSP to the work of MGS3 in it's native resolution and same textures/etc....., it wouldn't be able to do it at all....ever. But it has a good chance to reproduce(or relatively close) it visually if you were do it at low resolution(small screen = lesser processing) with low textures you wouldn't noticed much different at all because it's all on a small screen.<<<<

And tenchir manages to completely miss the point. PSP is absolutely state-of-the-art for a HAND-HELD DEVICE. Simply stated, it's easier to get performance from a larger device. Why do you think desktop PCs are so much more powerful than Pocket PCs? More and larger (meaning much higher transistor counts if you use the same process) processors are possible, and the larger the case, the easier it is to cool. Cooler= potential for higher clock speeds while maintaining stable operation. I'm sure Sony would have made a portable PS3 if they could, buts it's an absolute fucking impossibility for the next five years or more.
Nintendo aimed low technically and charged high (compared to costs) with all previous Gameboys. PSP appears to be the opposite.

I don't care whether it is state of the art or not. I am simply stating that the PSP can get graphics as good as PS2 on the that small screen of it. You seem to think I am comparing horse power directly. I am merely talking about horse power in regard to graphics and what it's aimed for. I have already stated this in my post after that about it.

 

[Deg]

I don't care whether it is state of the art or not. I am simply stating that the PSP can get graphics as good as PS2 on the that small screen of it.

Its very close but resloution and graphics arent as good as PS2.

1.5GB is plenty for most games.

 

[tenchir]

Its very close but resloution and graphics arent as good as PS2.

You aren't playing the game a television so resolution being not as good is a moot point. The advantage of smaller resolution and screen will allow it to get away with lower detailed textures(saving a lot of space), since we won't noticed it. The graphics don't seem good, but we have only been seeing the first generation games and demoes. The GT4M producer seem to think the PSP can make the PSP version pretty close to PS2 version.

1.5GB is plenty for most games.

It's more than enough in my opinion, considering it doesn't have to display at television resolution(640x480?).

 

[Deg]

No duh, the smaller resolution allow it to get away with lower detailed textures(saving a lot of space). But we have only been seeing the first generation games and demoes. The GT4M producer seem to think the PSP can make the PSP version pretty close to PS2 version.



It's more than enough in my opinion, considering it doesn't have to display at television resolution(640x480?).

You cant get away with lower res textures. Its shows. The small screen size can hide flaws however.

 

[tenchir]

You cant get away with lower res textures. Its shows. The small screen size can hide flaws however.

No, you really can't noticed it, at least to most people. You are stuck on the small screen, it won't be noticeable unless you can play it on the television. Making a texture lower res just make it lose details, when you go from 30-40 in. screen to a 3-4 in. screen(I don't remember PSP screen size), it wouldn't show. It's just hard to make textures look detailed on small screens.

If you have a PocketPC and FF7, try using FPSE emulator to play it on PPC, the background will lose a lot of details. Just imagine the background as a huge ass detailed textures, now imagine what will normal textures look like on smaller screens, the detail is just lost or really hard to make out.

 

[kaching]

It's obvious that PSP is the console that you buy if you want to play the same old games, and same kinds of games you can on the PS2. If you want new gameplay experiences, just buy a Nintendo DS. No need to argue, really

Really, LW, there's no reason to criticize Nintendo so harshly. Suggesting they are unable to innovate purely through software and must therefore employ technologies that are at least a decade old in hopes that people either forgot about them, never played with them or will just look at them through the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia, in order to create the illusion of new gameplay experience, is highly uncalled for. Granted, this does seem to have been the hallmark of Nintendo's portable strategy all along but you're going too far implying that they use it as a crutch. Honestly, I thought you liked Nintendo.

 

[jarrod]

Need I point out the number of SNES ports on GBA?

Less than 30... out of a library of what, 500-600 games?

And it looks like DS will home to many N64 ports.

Out of the 80 or so games announced so far... there's two. And Mario 64x4 should barely count given it's new multiplayer redesign.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Out of the 80 or so games announced so far... there's two. And Mario 64x4 should barely count given it's new multiplayer redesign.

There's going to be ports from older systems too like the SNES. Not that I find it a big deal, but going by comments in this thread and other PSP threads I can see some people going crazy over that idea.

 

[Brofist]

Let's move on already...who cares about what Sony said...does anyone believe the bs PR from these companies anyway. Sony isn't the first, and wont be the last to spin some bs.

I'm just happy at the kind of games the PSP will be able to put out. Will there be ports...yes, will there be sequels...yes, will there be repackaged overpriced rereleases of classic games we've bought 20 times (well some of us ) already...yes.

But there will be a lot of new content I'm sure, and if the price is right and the mix of all above said games is good I will buy one. And if GT4 is sweet enough on PSP I might just buy it a 2nd time.

 

[kaching]

I don't care whether it is state of the art or not.

Then you shouldn't have butt in when I countered Neutron Night about whether the PSP was "deliberately inferior hardware" in the first place.

 

[jarrod]

There's going to be ports from older systems too like the SNES. Not that I find it a big deal, but going by comments in this thread and other PSP threads I can see some people going crazy over that idea.

I'm just saying, despite people always calling GBA a port machine (and automatically assuming DS will follow) the actual numbers tell a different story. In fact, I'd say PS2, GC & XBox proportinately all have less exclusive games than GBA.

 

[tenchir]

Then you shouldn't have butt in when I countered Neutron Night about whether the PSP was "deliberately inferior hardware" in the first place.

I wanted to talked about the graphic that the PSP could produce. Comparing the PSP hardware to PS2 directly would give some people the wrong impression on what the PSP can do. There are already some arguments based on the demoes at E3 or the unimpressive Death Jr game that looks like a N64 game.

 

[SolidSnakex]

I wanted to talked about the graphic that the PSP could produce. Comparing the PSP hardware to PS2 directly would give some people the wrong impression on what the PSP can do. There are already some arguments based on the demoes at E3 or the unimpressive Death Jr game that looks like a N64 game.

Well I know the PSP can do this:

So i'd say there's no reason to knock the PSP'svisual quality.

 

[DDayton]

Personally, I found this funny because so many of the GBA detractors wail for hours upon end about the GBA being nothing but a "SNES port system", then the first Sony 1st party title for the PSP is revealed to be a port.

 

[kaching]

I wanted to talked about the graphic that the PSP could produce.

Then why quote me in the first place, as if you were responding directly to what I said? I was talking about hardware design, not visual performance. Hardware design <> visual performance.