Sony SUCKS!!!

[Iron MikeyJ]

3 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I’d also say that sports games were massive long before the Dreamcast came along. For people who don’t give a shit about basketball (everybody in the world outside the US) we were playing Pro Evolution Soccer/FIFA or their predecessors back in the days of the SNES and many of these games still hold up well today. 

Who makes Pro Evolution? I honestly don't know? But from what I've heard, it's better than FIFA. So if that's true, than EA HAS lost the Soccer/football crowd as well. 

They still have boxing though. Fight Night is the ONLY place to play a good boxing game since Mike Tysons Punch Out. Which I don't consider Punch Out to REALLY be a sports game.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Iron MikeyJ

[Dazey]

27 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Who makes Pro Evolution? I honestly don't know? But from what I've heard, it's better than FIFA. So if that's true, than EA HAS lost the Soccer/football crowd as well. 

They still have boxing though. Fight Night is the ONLY place to play a good boxing game since Mike Tysons Punch Out. Which I don't consider Punch Out to REALLY be a sports game.

Konami do Pro Evo and it’s about on par with FIFA. Not quite as good in recent years but not far off. 

[downzy]

1 hour ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

WRONG. 

EA Sports with Madden and NBA Live CREATED the video game sports industry, but they DID NOT bring it into the modern era, 2k did. Before Madden and NBA Live, video game sports were mostly a novelty idea, but not a real viable industry. Even beloved games that predate EA like Techmo Bowl, it was really more of a novelty game in its day, not a full on "hit". It wasn't until the 90s that the sports genre took off, and that WAS due to Madden and NBA Live (with NBA Jam from Activision also). But those games were hits in the 16 bit and 32 bit eras. It was 2K THAT really brought sports games properly into the modern era, they were the first 3D sports games that REALLY did the sports justice. Sure Madden 64 on the N64 tried, but it was a VERY flawed game. NBA 2k (the first one) was SO MUCH different than ANY other sports game before it, than 2K followed that up with NFL 2k. They had Allen Iverson and Randy Moss as cover athletes, so they REALLY spoke to the generation at that time as well. EA was rushing to try and keep up with 2K, and was VERY threatened by them. Honestly to this day, NO NBA Live game has been able to compete with 2k basketball. Madden STILLS reigns supreme in football, but again that's because they made a deal making them the only football game available. Had 2K been able to keep making football games, THEY would be the kings also imo. EA admitted defeat in basketball (they even stopped making NBA Live for a number of years, until this past year), and Madden would of had a similar fate imo. 

So again, how exactly did 2k NOT bring sports games into the modern 3D era? 

Nice try, you didn't say modern 3D era.  You said modern sports gaming.  

I guess you didn't pay much attention to sports games in the 90s then.  FIFA, NHL, and Madden were all huge games, very far from being a novelty.  EA Sports was already one of the largest game publishers in the world long before 2K Football came around.

I also question how a system that sold only 3 million units in NA brought viability to a video game genre and elevated it beyond niche.  I don't discount that 2K Football was ahead of its time, but this notion that sports gaming stopped being a niche industry with its release is absurd.

1 hour ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Trying to deny the fact the PS2 sold as well as did (in part) because of its dvd player is just plain incorrect. It was a HUGE selling point for a great many people. Would the PS2 still have won that era without the DVD player? Possibly, but not by NEAR the margin it did. A VAST amount of hardcore gamers that I follow on the internet also agree with this point. Due to the DVD player, the PS2 HAS to be considered a "gimmick" machine just like the Wii was. Sure it also provided plenty of quality content, unlike the Wii, but when "old people" want your machine, it's due to a gimmick. Like I said earlier, only 3 machines have crossed over like that; the original NES, PS2, and the Wii. Which the original NES IS the only one that wasn't a gimmick machine, it was just plain revolutionary. I feel the Switch will also fall into the revolutionary category. It'll mark the end of TV only gaming, and going forward Sony and Microsoft will copy that success. Its 2018, being able to take high quality games ANYWHERE has never been done like this before, plus you can still hook it up to your tv if you choose. Which on a side note I don't. It feels like "old" technology when I play it that way. 

The DVD capability surely drove sales, and it's likely a prominent reason why the system became one of the biggest selling systems of all time.  But this had nothing to do with the demise of the Dreamcast.  The system was three months from being defunct after the PS2's release.  

[action]

1 hour ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Trying to deny the fact the PS2 sold as well as did (in part) because of its dvd player is just plain incorrect. It was a HUGE selling point for a great many people. Would the PS2 still have won that era without the DVD player? Possibly, but not by NEAR the margin it did. A VAST amount of hardcore gamers that I follow on the internet also agree with this point. Due to the DVD player, the PS2 HAS to be considered a "gimmick" machine just like the Wii was. Sure it also provided plenty of quality content, unlike the Wii, but when "old people" want your machine, it's due to a gimmick. Like I said earlier, only 3 machines have crossed over like that; the original NES, PS2, and the Wii. Which the original NES IS the only one that wasn't a gimmick machine, it was just plain revolutionary. I feel the Switch will also fall into the revolutionary category. It'll mark the end of TV only gaming, and going forward Sony and Microsoft will copy that success. Its 2018, being able to take high quality games ANYWHERE has never been done like this before, plus you can still hook it up to your tv if you choose. Which on a side note I don't. It feels like "old" technology when I play it that way. 

there is absolutely no reason to play multiplats on the PS2 as they were generally the inferior version. as for the DVD player; it's a gimmick indeed and using it too much would vastly shorten its lifespan. it's a gimmick if i ever saw one.

PS2 has some essential exclusives, i give it that. metal gear solid, gran turismo and some others.

nothing on the PS2 warrants its vast sales numbers over the competition though. it's all just baked air

Edited February 21, 2018 by action

[downzy]

33 minutes ago, action said:

there is absolutely no reason to play multiplats on the PS2 as they were generally the inferior version. as for the DVD player; it's a gimmick indeed and using it too much would vastly shorten its lifespan. it's a gimmick if i ever saw one.

PS2 has some essential exclusives, i give it that. metal gear solid, gran turismo and some others.

nothing on the PS2 warrants its vast sales numbers over the competition though. it's all just baked air

Grand Theft Auto is a big reason why the system succeeded (Gran Turismo and GTA games were the only games I ever bought for the PS2 and the reason why I bought one).   Plus the Final Fantasy series was exclusive to Sony's system through the early 2000s.  

Also, it felt as though most sports gamers took to the PS2.

[Dazey]

3 minutes ago, downzy said:

Grand Theft Auto is a big reason why the system succeeded (Gran Turismo and GTA games were the only games I ever bought for the PS2 and the reason why I bought one).   Plus the Final Fantasy series was exclusive to Sony's system through the early 2000s.  

Also, it felt as though most sports gamers took to the PS2.

To say nothing of brand loyalty from over 100 million PS1 owners. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

1 hour ago, downzy said:

Nice try, you didn't say modern 3D era.  You said modern sports gaming.  

I guess you didn't pay much attention to sports games in the 90s then.  FIFA, NHL, and Madden were all huge games, very far from being a novelty.  EA Sports was already one of the largest game publishers in the world long before 2K Football came around.

I also question how a system that sold only 3 million units in NA brought viability to a video game genre and elevated it beyond niche.  I don't discount that 2K Football was ahead of its time, but this notion that sports gaming stopped being a niche industry with its release is absurd.

The DVD capability surely drove sales, and it's likely a prominent reason why the system became one of the biggest selling systems of all time.  But this had nothing to do with the demise of the Dreamcast.  The system was three months from being defunct after the PS2's release.  

You twisted my words, which you are good at that. I said sports games went from a niche thing to a viable industry in the 90s on the backs of NBA Live, Madden, NBA Jam, and other EA games of the time. I ABSOLUTELY give them credit for that. 

I just said that 2K brought sports into the modern era, and they STARTED on the Dreamcast. So it's ANOTHER feather in the Sega hat, as well as internet gaming, and wireless controllers (if memory serves). 

2K REALLY took off after the Dreamcast was dead, when they ported them to the Xbox and PS2. But they DID start on the Dreamcast. 

Honestly the only people that preferred sports games on the PS2, never played them on the Xbox. As others said, the Xbox versions of multiports where always superior.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Iron MikeyJ

[Iron MikeyJ]

Honestly I blame Sony MORE for the PS1, N64, and Saturn era than for the PS2, Xbox, GameCube, and Dreamcast era.

Why? They STOLE Sega's fan base. Which I'm not sure "blame" is the appropriate word. Sega DID make some mistakes during that era, but it wasn't with the Saturn for the most part. Yes The Saturn was difficult to program for, but not impossible. Which the ironic thing is, pretty much ALL systems today are more similar to program for now to the Saturn than they are for either the PS1 or N64. So again, Sega was just too early. 

The majority of the mistakes Sega made during this time were with the Genesis add ons, NOT the Saturn though. So while Sega is at fault, the Saturn took the fall. Besides the diffulty (at that time to program for), the other mistake Sega made with the Saturn was 2D over 3D. They rushed to play catch up to Sony in regards to 3D gaming, when the Saturn was REALLY a 2D machine. It COULD run 3D games though (just harder to program for than the PS1). I would argue that multiports of that time, such as tomb raider, were BETTER on the Saturn as opposed to the PS1. Which people have done YT videos comparing the two, go look for yourself. I actually HAD tomb raider on the Saturn. 

Having said all of that, and giving a fair and honest assessment, the TRUE reason why the Saturn IS the better system now is because its THE best 2D gaming console of all time. Which is likely to never change now. It IS the best place to play the arcade games of THAT time. Basically what Neo Geo was in the early 90s, the Saturn perfected in the mid 90s. Even though as a collector, you might have to get imports from Japan (which there are TONS of great Japaneese exclusives for the Saturn), because the system was HUGE over there, bigger than the PS1 and the N64 I believe. It just lost the rest of the world. So game wise, it (arguably) has the best library for that generation, because of the arcade exclusives. Which all of these games have aged AMAZINGLY because they are 2D games. Like Marvel vs Capcom for example, which system has THE best version? The Saturn does. Nintendo deserves proper credit also though, because they really made some CLASSICS for the N64. Having said that, MANY of those games COULD be made better now, due to improvements in 3D gaming. The 2D Arcade games on the Saturn are perfect though, just as good as playing in an actual arcade game or even on a PS4 now. 

Not to mention internet gaming STARTED with the Saturn, a HUGE feather for the Sega hat imo.

I had a Saturn from the get go. It was an AMAZING console that shocked me didn't get more love at the time. Honestly I bought a PS1 also, and was never impressed. Sure I played it, but I NEVER understood why ALL those Genesis fans jumped ship to Sony. That's REALLY why I blame Sony, they somehow managed to steal Sega's fan base. Which sure, the PS1 had some great games for that time (even though they have aged pretty poorly), if the fans hadn't of jumped ship, all those PS1 "exclusives" would have, and should have been on the Saturn. So that argument doesn't hold merit with me. Every single game that the PS1 ran, the Saturn could have as well, and arguably better.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Iron MikeyJ

[action]

1 hour ago, downzy said:

Grand Theft Auto is a big reason why the system succeeded (Gran Turismo and GTA games were the only games I ever bought for the PS2 and the reason why I bought one).   Plus the Final Fantasy series was exclusive to Sony's system through the early 2000s.  

Also, it felt as though most sports gamers took to the PS2.

how could i forgert GTA3! it was a turning point in the console wars. PS2 struggled in the beginning. gran turismo 3 was its first really big system seller, but GTA3 sent it to the stratosphere

 

[downzy]

1 minute ago, action said:

how could i forgert GTA3! it was a turning point in the console wars. PS2 struggled in the beginning. gran turismo 3 was its first really big system seller, but GTA3 sent it to the stratosphere

 

I actually didn't really like or "get" GTA3.  It was actually Vice City that got me onboard.  And I loved San Andreas. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

Also the Saturn had internal memory, the FIRST console to do that. Wasn't Sony's first system with internal memory the PS3?

[action]

7 minutes ago, downzy said:

I actually didn't really like or "get" GTA3.  It was actually Vice City that got me onboard.  And I loved San Andreas. 

i remember wanting to buy GTAIII, and the game was just sold out everywhere for weeks.

seeing screenshots of the game blew me away. i couldnt really get my head around them: were they ingame or not. It was one of these once in a lifetime moments when i eventually played that game. the sequels were "more of the same" and couldnt replicate the same feeling. but objectively, they were of course better. especially san andreas. did you find the jetpack? that was pretty cool

[downzy]

11 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Also the Saturn had internal memory, the FIRST console to do that. Wasn't Sony's first system with internal memory the PS3?

Nope, unless you understand "internal memory" as something different.

The 3DO I believe was the first console to have internal memory (RAM).  

Actually, looking into it, it seems the Atari 2600 came with internal memory.  

And every playstation has had internal memory.  

[Iron MikeyJ]

Just now, downzy said:

Nope, unless you understand "internal memory" as something different.

The 3DO I believe was the first console to have internal memory (RAM).  

And every playstation has had internal memory.  

I'm talking about being able to save games WITHOUT a memory card. You couldn't do that with the PS1. I was genuinely asking about the PS2, but wasn't a memory card required for that also?

I remember that ONE HUGE advantage the OG Xbox had over the PS2 was the no need for a memory card.

[Iron MikeyJ]

BTW, I have a feeling you KNEW exactly what I was talking about. You ALWAYS try and twist my words. 

[downzy]

11 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I'm talking about being able to save games WITHOUT a memory card. You couldn't do that with the PS1. I was genuinely asking about the PS2, but wasn't a memory card required for that also?

Actually, I don't believe the Dreamcast had any internal storage.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought all saved-game data was done on Sega's Visual Memory Unit (VMU) that plugged into the controller?  I've found nothing online that supports the claim that saved-game info could be saved directly to the console itself.  I've long thought that the first Xbox was the first console to offer in-box storage.  

7 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

BTW, I have a feeling you KNEW exactly what I was talking about. You ALWAYS try and twist my words. 

Nope, when people use the term "internal memory," they usually are referring to a computer or console's onboard RAM.  What you're referring to is commonly referred to as storage.

[bucketfoot]

4 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Would the PS2 still have won that era without the DVD player?

Yes, easily.

4 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Due to the DVD player, the PS2 HAS to be considered a "gimmick" machine just like the Wii was.

Nope, that's like saying the PS1 and Saturn were gimmick machines because they used a new medium in moving from cartridges to CD's, just utter nonsense. I suppose the Mega/Sega CD by your beloved Sega was also a gimmick? Technology moves forward and progresses all the time, mate, keep up.

[downzy]

24 minutes ago, action said:

i remember wanting to buy GTAIII, and the game was just sold out everywhere for weeks.

seeing screenshots of the game blew me away. i couldnt really get my head around them: were they ingame or not. It was one of these once in a lifetime moments when i eventually played that game. the sequels were "more of the same" and couldnt replicate the same feeling. but objectively, they were of course better. especially san andreas. did you find the jetpack? that was pretty cool

Yeah, it was an impressive game.  I remember seeing it for the first time at my buddy's place who had a PS2.  It looked great, but I had issues with the controls.  I perhaps didn't give it a fair shake.  It was Vice City and its environment that really grabbed my attention and got me to give the series another try.

The feeling you described was what I felt the first time I played Mario 64.  

[downzy]

2 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

You twisted my words, which you are good at that. I said sports games went from a niche thing to a viable industry in the 90s on the backs of NBA Live, Madden, NBA Jam, and other EA games of the time. I ABSOLUTELY give them credit for that. 

I just said that 2K brought sports into the modern era, and they STARTED on the Dreamcast. So it's ANOTHER feather in the Sega hat, as well as internet gaming, and wireless controllers (if memory serves). 

2K REALLY took off after the Dreamcast was dead, when they ported them to the Xbox and PS2. But they DID start on the Dreamcast. 

Honestly the only people that preferred sports games on the PS2, never played them on the Xbox. As others said, the Xbox versions of multiports where always superior.

Nope, the use of 3D modelling for in-game players was already present in PC sports games.  I believe NHL '97 or '98 had incorporated full 3D modelling for both the arena and players (though not the cardboard fans).  

As for console gaming, it's not as though this wasn't coming for PS2, Xbox, and the Gamecube.  You're talking as though if it weren't for 2K Football all Madden games would have remained using 2D character models.  The Dreamcast was simply the first machine out that was powerful enough to process 3D modelling in a way that made people take notice.  It would have happened on the PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube regardless of what happened on Dreamcast.   Does Sega get credit for being first?  I guess, but since few people bought a Dreamcast, I don't think it really mattered in the end.  EA Sports and other game publishers were well on their way to releasing 3D modelled sports games for other console systems (and were already there for PC gaming) regardless of what 2K was doing on Sega.  

[bucketfoot]

Seeing a couple of posts talking about games that turned your gaming world upside down, it would be the first Resident Evil for me, from the first screenshots I saw (may have been EDGE magazine) and the anticipation I felt, through to buying and actually playing the thing. It was all I had ever wanted from a video game, a genuinely adult experience and a true game changer. Walking into that first Spider room, always having had a phobia of them, was both scary and exhilarating at the same time, no game had ever had that kind of effect on me and I've been hooked on survival horror games ever since.

Edited February 21, 2018 by bucketfoot

[Iron MikeyJ]

@downzy,

Either you dont read my posts or you just like twisting my words... I never said 2K was the FIRST to do 3D sports video games, I actually gave them credit for Madden 64. What they DID was perfect it in a way that EA could NEVER do, not at that time. That's why 2K gave birth to modern 3D sports games imo. With EA it was always improve last year's game slightly. They had been doing that with every game since NBA Live 95 and Madden and NHL 94. When a new console came out, then sure you would see an overall improvement in graphics and even 3D on PS1 and N64. It took 2K coming along (on the Dreamcast) that completely changed the landscape. Why? Perspective. They had a new and fresh perspective that was different from the slight improvements that EA was doing every year. 2K had a different game engine than EA did, it was VERY refreshing, and a lot more realistic. Because of 2K, EA had rethink the way they were making game. So then they "tried" to play catch up and do what 2K was doing. Honestly I would argue that they have NEVER been able to REALLY do it. They lost basketball, and WOULD have lost football. They lost soccer also because of Pro Evolution, and they never really had baseball. Perhaps they still have hockey, but IDK there. Honestly I only really give them boxing and football (by default on both). 

Now 2K only slightly improves last years game as well, so they have fallen into that trap as well. But they dominate basketball, and have ever since NBA 2K on the Dreamcast. Which I would argue THAT single game is the MOST responsible for modern sports games than any other game. It was a game changer man, IDK why you keep trying to deny it?

[Iron MikeyJ]

16 minutes ago, bucketfoot said:

Seeing a couple of posts talking about games that turned your gaming world upside down, it would be the first Resident Evil for me, from the first screenshots I saw (may have been EDGE magazine) and the anticipation I felt, through to buying and actually playing the thing. It was all I had ever wanted from a video game, a genuinely adult experience and a true game changer. Walking into that first Spider room, always having had a phobia of them, was both scary and exhilarating at the same time, no game had ever had that kind of effect on me and I've been hooked on survival horror games ever since.

Ya Resident Evil WAS a game changer, that's for sure. The definitive version is the GameCube version though.

[Dazey]

1 hour ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Also the Saturn had internal memory, the FIRST console to do that. Wasn't Sony's first system with internal memory the PS3?

The Sega CD was actually the 1st to have internal memory I think.

[downzy]

48 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

@downzy,

Either you dont read my posts or you just like twisting my words... I never said 2K was the FIRST to do 3D sports video games, I actually gave them credit for Madden 64. What they DID was perfect it in a way that EA could NEVER do, not at that time. That's why 2K gave birth to modern 3D sports games imo. With EA it was always improve last year's game slightly. They had been doing that with every game since NBA Live 95 and Madden and NHL 94. When a new console came out, then sure you would see an overall improvement in graphics and even 3D on PS1 and N64. It took 2K coming along (on the Dreamcast) that completely changed the landscape. Why? Perspective. They had a new and fresh perspective that was different from the slight improvements that EA was doing every year. 2K had a different game engine than EA did, it was VERY refreshing, and a lot more realistic. Because of 2K, EA had rethink the way they were making game. So then they "tried" to play catch up and do what 2K was doing. Honestly I would argue that they have NEVER been able to REALLY do it. They lost basketball, and WOULD have lost football. They lost soccer also because of Pro Evolution, and they never really had baseball. Perhaps they still have hockey, but IDK there. Honestly I only really give them boxing and football (by default on both). 

Now 2K only slightly improves last years game as well, so they have fallen into that trap as well. But they dominate basketball, and have ever since NBA 2K on the Dreamcast. Which I would argue THAT single game is the MOST responsible for modern sports games than any other game. It was a game changer man, IDK why you keep trying to deny it?

What exactly is your definition of modern sports gaming?  

Moreover, how did 2K perfect football in a way that EA could never do?  What is that way?  How did 2K change the landscape when others were already utilizing 3D modelling tech?  

My first reaction to seeing 2K Football was that they finally are competing with what EA is doing on PCs.  

FIFA is still, and has been for a very long time, the biggest selling soccer/football game.  The franchise has sold over 100 million copies, with FIFA 2018 selling over ten million copies in three months.   Not sure how you say that EA lost soccer?  

I like You IM, but you keep making statements that don't hold up to actual facts or scrutiny.  It's not that I go looking for ways to argue with you, but when you state that PS2 only did well because of its inclusion of DVD player, that the Dreamcast was the first console with internal storage (when it didn't have any), or that the FIFA soccer series is now considered second tier, it makes it very hard to agree with your overall sentiment.  

[Iron MikeyJ]

24 minutes ago, Dazey said:

The Sega CD was actually the 1st to have internal memory I think.

Which I don't remember if this is true or not. Even though (outside of Sonic CD) this system was awful. Reguardless, this only proves how a head of everyone else Sega was!!!