WORMS: OPEN disapointment [Archive] - Team17 Forum

PDA

View Full Version : WORMS: OPEN disapointment

sygys
11 Apr 2006, 16:00
Hi all,
I read some stuff about other people and i must say, i cant do anything else then agree with them. All awsome weapons are torn out and the boring have stayed. second i read that the cpu of the ds was slow. well the psp is very slow too. computer is waiting 10~15 sec before even moving... 3rd when zooming out frame rate is getting bad. 4th all the awsome compaign maps with boobytraps and special missions have been replaced for a 20 boring cpu to human matches... well if i wanted that i just hit the quick game button and play it like that...
I must say a very disapointing game people of team 17 I really hope there will be an update for this game very soon!
:( :( :(

Xinos
11 Apr 2006, 22:10
:rolleyes:
What do you want us to do about it?
There are already threads for whining, just pick one.

Peersy
12 Apr 2006, 18:56
What do you want us to do about it?
There are already threads for whining, just pick one.
Very true:cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:

Genexi2
13 Apr 2006, 00:18
I be keeping to my word when I said I wouldn't be purchasing the DS version of W:OW if it didn't score 6.0 or higher on GameSpot. =\
Unfortunate event in either case though, I take it lack of love & development time for the project got the best of the team. More-so when this series isn't exactly fast-selling (well, over here where I live anyhow), and just releasing a half-baked product wont help the franchise any.

48Prong
15 Apr 2006, 02:49
I am very dissapointed with Worms: Open Warfare on the DS. I have been a fan since day one, blah, blah, blah, and I seriously have to say that this is the WORST worms game released to date... This thing just feels rushed and is so full of glitches and bugs, it is almost unacceptable, not to mention it just isn't all that fun to play. I sold it on Ebay 5 days after getting it. I seriously cannot find anything to praise about this game at all. Worms World Party on the GBA is still way above WOW in every way, as far as a handheld version is concerned... Because of this games crappyness, I will never again buy another Team 17 game without first reading the reviews. Up to this point, I have always bought all your new releases on launch day. Not anymore. My trust in your name has gone to crap.

Ploegman 2
17 Apr 2006, 14:46
My trust in your name has gone to crap.
As has mine a long time ago.

SuperBlob
17 Apr 2006, 19:46
Because of this games crappyness, I will never again buy another Team 17 game without first reading the reviews. Up to this point, I have always bought all your new releases on launch day. Not anymore. My trust in your name has gone to crap.
...Didn't Gamesauce make it though? :p

Xtreem
17 Apr 2006, 21:51
Hi all,
I read some stuff about other people and i must say, i cant do anything else then agree with them. All awsome weapons are torn out and the boring have stayed. second i read that the cpu of the ds was slow. well the psp is very slow too. computer is waiting 10~15 sec before even moving... 3rd when zooming out frame rate is getting bad. 4th all the awsome compaign maps with boobytraps and special missions have been replaced for a 20 boring cpu to human matches... well if i wanted that i just hit the quick game button and play it like that...
I must say a very disapointing game people of team 17 I really hope there will be an update for this game very soon!
:( :( :(
I must agree with you, multiplayer sotra makes up for it as thats always fun but i feel it should be like a mini game on something like xbox live arcade.. no where near long or good enough to be conciderd a full game. I dont think. I wouldnt be botherd if i paid a fiver for it, i got it for £17.99 which aint bad when u think some people paid over £30 for it... ill stick to worms on the pc or even wwp for ngage. Its hard to belive the mobile phone version is actually more enjoyable than the PSP version.. i never thaught i would say that about a mobile phone game. What happend... :(

Mr.cosmico
20 Apr 2006, 19:24
I cant get it why you people hate this game so much.
I've just spent the whole day playing with my friends, and it was fun as hell. Yeah, there arent many options, but, seeing as this game tries to recreate the first Worms, it's really good. And I think that Worms 1 is still the best one.
It gets really strategic, and not some blow 'em up. If you hated this game, how come you liked Worms 1?

Vercetti
21 Apr 2006, 05:21
If you hated this game, how come you liked Worms 1?
It's not 1995 anymore, Worms is no longer original and we expect more from games. The PSP is far more powerfull than the PC, I ran Worms on 10 years ago. The original didn't have as many obvious bugs as the DS version and some of the glitches actually made the game more fun.
I don't hate this game and the PSP version actually seems acceptable but it should have been better.

Peersy
24 Apr 2006, 20:39
PsP version is good. Just there should have been customisable maps and weapons toa dd or not. The TEAM 17 people made the option of including some weapons like shotgun but had they of added the HHD Super sheep and other super weapons this could have been changed to be more like the strategic game people wanted, therefore they could have had more people on their side as people wanting Super weapons have them and the strategic people have the choice to get rid of super weapons. Also no online multiplayer is a crap move!

AndrewTaylor
24 Apr 2006, 20:56
Also no online multiplayer is a crap move!
Not actually a move.
Nobody had a choice in this matter. It's been discussed over and over and over again, and then some more. Don't let's dredge it up again.
Of, and it's "had they HAVE", not "had they OF".
The problem is less one of "The Game Is Bad" as it is one of "You Wanted One Game And Team 17 Made A Different One". You wanted a PSP version of W:A, but that's not what T17 made. They made a whole new version of Worms, and as such modelled it on the original, not W:A. Worms is a better game without a lot of overpowered weapons (it might be less amusing to fire up and cause mindless voilence with, but that is why God gave us Tom And Jerry), it's simpler (which is better on handhelds, particularly when you're passing one between a few players), and it's also more accessible to new players who don't want to learn the ins and outs of 50 weapons.
Granted it could have probably done with a few more options, but if you let the average person have a page full of options they'll immediately turn on all the superweapons and never play it without them, reasoning that it must be better with more weapons. And it'll get boring fairly fast and then why would they buy the next game?

Peersy
24 Apr 2006, 20:58
ok points taken :-P

Darkspark
18 May 2006, 15:42
I sold it on Ebay 5 days after getting it. I seriously cannot find anything to praise about this game at all.
Ha. People will buy anything on ebay right?:o
As for online multiplayer, if this function was included it may take all day to get matched up. Its hard enough getting 3 other players for tetris.

aced411
16 Nov 2006, 13:54
I was pleasantly surprised w/ the PSP version. I love it! Sure I miss some of the weapons but I'll live...... On another note at first I was floored w/ the kookoo physics and glitches of the DS version, but after playing 4 player matches w/ 1 game and 4 friends I've learned to adjust and have a blast!

Kurrus
18 Nov 2006, 23:08
The DS version of W:OW looks like it's not finished. It was going to have Online, but didn't. Too many bugs. Too few weapons. Also a lack of both versions is that there is no customisation other than Names and soundbank (and personality in PSP). I read once it was going to have clothes and these things just like in W4:M, and also a global weapon factory.
Maybe things of the publisher?

Spadge
19 Nov 2006, 08:23
The DS version of W:OW looks like it's not finished. It was going to have Online, but didn't. Too many bugs. Too few weapons. Also a lack of both versions is that there is no customisation other than Names and soundbank (and personality in PSP). I read once it was going to have clothes and these things just like in W4:M, and also a global weapon factory.
Maybe things of the publisher?
Neither version were planned to have online or W4 content at the time, there wasn't enough time nor development budget, which is limited by the publisher - and the developer in conjunction. WOW was developed at a time when the online side of both consoles was very immature and fragile, with online games only just appearing prior to the launch. Games are developed quite some time ahead of launch and this is not always considered by players. Wow PSP/DS was begun code wise over 2yrs ago - it is then that decisions about online have to be made and PSP and DS at that time had no online plans available, the first online titles were DS/Nintendo first party. We were pretty much the first online service title for Sony 1st party with Lemmings, although a couple of other titles used Gamespy.

Vader
19 Nov 2006, 17:39
My trust in your name has gone to crap.
That's a bit harsh. Loads of great games you like and one which disappoints seems a harsh reason to call a developer crap, surely?

kikumbob
19 Nov 2006, 18:54
That's a bit harsh. Loads of great games you like and one which disappoints seems a harsh reason to call a developer crap, surely? Its very easy to get angry with the developers when actually its a combination of alot of things. Primarily the way that marketing is done and how badly publishers want to get money out of things. Ironically, the mess created means that publishers dont get as much money out of it. Hoorah.

Vader
30 Nov 2006, 15:29
The mess created means that publishers dont get as much money out of it. Hoorah.
That's certainly true. I just bought a copy for £7.50 and it was preowned so not even that is going to the publishers.
I have to say, it's horrible. Horrible. However, it will provide some laughs on the train and such. My biggest disappointment is that I couldn't make my WA team because of the character limits; I was expecting bad gameplay but without my team there's little emotional attachment. :'(

almostsk8r
10 Dec 2006, 18:47
ok, you made your point, less weapons is better, etc.
but
1) why did you take out the worm pot? it was the funnest thing in the game, it made it last 10 times longer because there's almost infinite possibilities, and now it's gone
2) there's not a single unlockable in the whole game? that kind of thing really makes you wonder why your even playing at it.
if there were a few updates, that would be cool, but otherwise, I really don't understand team17

yakuza
10 Dec 2006, 19:05
Granted it could have probably done with a few more options, but if you let the average person have a page full of options they'll immediately turn on all the superweapons and never play it without them, reasoning that it must be better with more weapons. And it'll get boring fairly fast and then why would they buy the next game?
Lmao. Please.

Squirminator2k
10 Dec 2006, 19:48
Sigh. Looks like I have to come in and dissect posts left by Idiots again. Yawn. It's becoming very tedious.
I read some stuff about other people and i must say, i cant do anything else then agree with them.
Which is ironic, as I don't really think anyone is going to agree with any of the statements you have made, which I will now dissect with youthful abundance.
All awsome weapons are torn out and the boring have stayed.
The weapon set is almost identical to the set from the original Worms, with the exception of the Jetpack which first appeared in WA, and the Minigun which was in the original but is missing here. That's my only gripe, weapon-wise - no Minigun. I can live without it, though.
second i read that the cpu of the ds was slow. well the psp is very slow too. computer is waiting 10~15 sec before even moving...
On the PSP version? I've never had to wait more than 5 seconds for the computer to take its turn. Even still, this isn't a new problem - the AI in WA and WWP on the PSone took its sweet time moving. it's a hardware limitation if anything, and not something Team 17 have any control over.
3rd when zooming out frame rate is getting bad.[/quoute]
I didn't notice any problems with the framerate when zooming out, but I can understand why if there are - the game is having to render more. Shocking news - when the CPU has more to process the framerate may drop. More on this exciting development as we have it.
[quote="sygys"]4th all the awsome compaign maps with boobytraps and special missions have been replaced for a 20 boring cpu to human matches... well if i wanted that i just hit the quick game button and play it like that...
It's a handheld title. Simple is the order of the day. This is why GTA: Liberty City Stories is more fun on the PS2 than on the PSP. "Big" games simply do not work on handhelds because people do not have the time or the inclination for them. If you're looking for new missions, pick up Worms World Party for the PC. There's a Mission Editor for it, you can make your own and download other people's. So there.
I must say a very disapointing game people of team 17 I really hope there will be an update for this game very soon!
And that would work how?
And now moving on to Genexi2's unique brand of ignorance...
I be keeping to my word when I said I wouldn't be purchasing the DS version of W:OW if it didn't score 6.0 or higher on GameSpot. =\
Unfortunate event in either case though, I take it lack of love & development time for the project got the best of the team. More-so when this series isn't exactly fast-selling (well, over here where I live anyhow), and just releasing a half-baked product wont help the franchise any.
...and the nonsensical rantings of 48Prong, Master of Ceremonies.
I am very dissapointed with Worms: Open Warfare on the DS. I have been a fan since day one, blah, blah, blah, and I seriously have to say that this is the WORST worms game released to date... This thing just feels rushed and is so full of glitches and bugs, it is almost unacceptable, not to mention it just isn't all that fun to play. I sold it on Ebay 5 days after getting it. I seriously cannot find anything to praise about this game at all. Worms World Party on the GBA is still way above WOW in every way, as far as a handheld version is concerned... Because of this games crappyness, I will never again buy another Team 17 game without first reading the reviews. Up to this point, I have always bought all your new releases on launch day. Not anymore. My trust in your name has gone to crap.
Fair play to you for choosing not to buy the DS version - it's crap. This is because it wasn't developed by team 17 themselves, and traditionally Worms games not developed in house are generally crap. Case in point: Worms for the SNES, MegaDrive and Game Boy. Don't hold Team 17 responsible if they didn't make it (you are welcome to hold them entirely responsible for Army Men: Major Malfunction however - it was crap).
As has mine [trust in Team17's name] a long time ago.
To be fair Pleogman, you're a complete and utter tool, so I don't think anyone particularly cares about your opinion.
Hang on, weren't you banned for abusive behaviour...?
Vercetti, the time for foolharted ignorance is at hand!
It's not 1995 anymore, Worms is no longer original and we expect more from games.
You should be a Consultant for the Videogames Industry. Clearly Sony and Nintendo are wasting their time. Nintendo's Virtual Console is going to be exceedingly unpopular because people have played the games before, right? People want more from their games! And Sony's PSone emulation on the PSP will fail for the same reason. It's been ten years since these games were releases, so they should be completely overhauled and rehashed. M I RITE?
No. Wrong. Worms Open Warfare is more a "remake" of the original than anything else, and from where I'm sat the PSP version at the very least fulfills this criteria whilst also paying tribute to the W2/WA/WWP series and the new graphical style introduced from Worms 3D. It's a rare thing, is W:OW - a remake of a classic that is actually good.
And Yakuza...
Lmao. Please.
Thankyou.
You're welcome.
Any time.
Cool. Fancy going out some time?
Sorry, I'm not interested in Idiots.
Oh. Fair enough.

Vader
10 Dec 2006, 19:56
Lmao. Please.
I concur.
Andrew, the whole frontend is whack. It's more complicated than it needs to be, things are in the wrong places and there's very little room for scheme and team customisation.
A few more options would definitely benefit this title. Given the abhorent functionality of the game, though, I am almost glad they didn't try to implement more.
Once you're in the game itself you realise just how limited the maps really are. Without custom maps there's no way to make a decent scheme-suitable map (obviously) which means that even if you have made a custom scheme you like, you probably won't find a map good enough for it.
Furthermore you are only allowed 3 user schemes. Three. Oh, and you pick a speechbank every time you play a game which all teams use. It completely defies the purpose of speechbanks.
I'd also have liked to have seen a grave and/or flag editor. Mario Kart has its emblem editor and that alone allows the user to fully stamp their own mark on the game and the other players.
Sheep Heaven would have been nice, golden weapons would have been nice, in fact, just about all of WA's options would have been nice.
I infer from your statement, Andrew, that players of WA always use Full Wormage. You may infer from my post that you are wrong.
Edit: Oh, and as for it being a remake of Worms... come on... even that plays well compared to this. I liked the first Worms game a lot but it is far inferior to W2/WA/WWP. Why regress like that?

Squirminator2k
10 Dec 2006, 20:03
I concur.
<snip>
Which version are you playing? THE DS version is abominable, but the PSP version is probably the second best handheld Worms game I've played, right behind WWP for the Ngage.

AndrewTaylor
10 Dec 2006, 23:47
I concur.
Andrew, <also snip>
I have never, and nor am I going to, comment(ed) on any of what you just said, having not bought the DS version and not owning a PSP. So I don't really know or care if what you say is true. If the game is buggy, or slow, or complicated, or hard, or frustrating is not my concern. Debate it all you like.
But people shouldn't criticise a game for not being something it was never supposed to be, in this case W:A on the PSP. That would be insane.

Vercetti
11 Dec 2006, 14:30
Nintendo's Virtual Console is going to be exceedingly unpopular because people have played the games before, right? People want more from their games! And Sony's PSone emulation on the PSP will fail for the same reason. It's been ten years since these games were releases, so they should be completely overhauled and rehashed. M I RITE?
You would be wrong to think that the majority of people don't want more from games than years ago. There's always a place for retro but it has to be priced appropriately. I still play many classic games but that doesn't mean I think they are worth the same as they were years ago. W:OW was the same price as most other games on DS/PSP. It was an updated remake but in my opinion, it just wasn't good enough.

AndrewTaylor
11 Dec 2006, 16:40
You'll have a hard time getting S2k to defend the DS version. He hates it. Do pay attention.

kikumbob
11 Dec 2006, 17:06
I think everyone will agree that Team17 were never going to be very ambitious with W:OW on the PSP. And, true to this statement, they havn't been. Its a portable worms game. Tada..
One small thing I'm confused about: If Team 17 didn't develop the DS game, who did?

Vader
11 Dec 2006, 20:01
That would be insane.
Why, exactly?
WA was out on PlayStation, right? Why shouldn't it work on PSP?
I think it's fair to be annoyed that anyone intended W:OW to be as bad and limiting as it is. I think it's fair to expect more from it. I don't think it's fair to flame people for voicing that opinion.
Why are you so protective over this game? Are you secretly to blame for it being ****?
Oh and Squirminator, I am indeed talking about the DS version. If the PSP version's front-end and features are the same as on the DS then I can't fathom how it can be considered to be good.

AndrewTaylor
11 Dec 2006, 23:46
Why, exactly?
Because if a game is designed specifically to be something that you personally don't like, and it admirably succeeds in being that thing, then it is a success. You can't criticise someone for succeeding in accomplishing exactly what they set out to do. You can't expect to like every game, so what you should do is check up on them before you spend actual money on them, and check that they're something you like the sound of. And why shouldn't Team 17 make a Worms game that is limited and simplified for a change? Okay, perhaps it won't please you, but that's not to say it's bad. I know for a fact you have awful taste anyway.
Personally, I defend W:OW for two reasons. The first is that I like to go against the grain and people here don't much like it. The second is because I love the tactics and mind games that Worms has, for me at least, always been about, and W:OW is an attempt to make sure that any people who come to Worms for the first time see that, instead of seeing it as a game based around roping and around picking up boxes and about turning 50 overpowered weapons to infinite ammo and generally causing havoc. If that means restricting people, then so be it. Perhaps they can get into the alternative play styles later, but it's going to be best for business, I would think, if they appreciate the core gameplay rather than seeing it as a sandbox game, which will have limited replay value, especially since it couldn't be made to work online at the time.
I'm defending neither version because I've played neither version. I'm given to understand that the PSP version is terribly good at what it does, and the DS version was hacked together by monkeys, trained by other monkeys, and its only merit stems from the fact that despite its flaws it's still just about Worms and Worms is basically a fun game.
Ultimately, what I really want to say is simply that whether or not it was right for Team17 to make W:OW what it is rather than remaking W:A for the umpteenth time doesn't change the fact that going out and spending your own, hard earned money on a game that was openly and specifically designed to be something that you wouldn't like and then whinging that you don't like it is a fantastically stupid thing to do and I don't understand how people expect that complaint to be taken seriously.
Of course, that relies on the game actually being marketed as what it is and not as W:A on the PSP. But that has nothing at all to do with the game -- how a game is marketed can't possibly affect how good it is.
Sorry for the long post. It rather overstates how much I really care about this. But I didn't have a short and snappy reply prepared because it never occured to me that anyone might need this explaining.
WA was out on PlayStation, right? Why shouldn't it work on PSP?
Because the PSP is not the PlayStation. It's played on a smaller screen, on the move, with all the inconveniences and distractions that can entail, for shorter periods, at different times by different people, with fewer controls and worse sound and one again it is not the PlayStation. What works on one does not necessarily work on the other.

Pieboy337
12 Dec 2006, 15:41
as has been said many times before, it is a portable version of the worms game, so we cant expect it to be like the pc one, because its not a pc. The one for psp came out very nicely and the lack of weapons is because (correct me if I am wrong) it was going for more of the original worms aproach. Yes, the ds one came out rather bad, having trying to like it on multiple occasions, I just had to stop playing it because of how unplayable it could be. But dont let that ruin the psp one because the psp one really is a great handheld worms game. I have to say I actually pefer it to the wwp for the Ngage. But it really is all a matter of opinion. If you dont like the game, great. Go sell it. Dont complain about it because your not being forced to play it.

robowurmz
12 Dec 2006, 18:08
Come on guys, cheer up! At least we have worms on XBLA to look forwards to.

yakuza
13 Dec 2006, 12:24
I'm still wondering how an UserMod was allowed to say that the game has less options/weapons so it doesn't get boring fast.
Wish we could have an online weapon usage count in WA, it'd prove how wrong you are.

AndrewTaylor
13 Dec 2006, 12:51
I'm still wondering how an UserMod was allowed to say that the game has less options/weapons so it doesn't get boring fast.
What? What does my being a mod have to do with it? I'm "allowed" to say exactly the same things as everyone else: i.e., whatever I want as long as it's not insulting, or trolling, or spam or what-have-you.
If you disagree with me, then go and buy a game you do like instead. But as afar as I'm concerned, and I know I'm not alone in this, adding loads of extra weapons removes strategy, and it's the lack of strategy that makes the game get boring. I know you can turn off some of the weapons, but the fact is that a lot of people simply won't, unless you make them.

Pieboy337
13 Dec 2006, 15:40
What? What does my being a mod have to do with it? I'm "allowed" to say exactly the same things as everyone else: i.e., whatever I want as long as it's not insulting, or trolling, or spam or what-have-you.
If you disagree with me, then go and buy a game you do like instead. But as afar as I'm concerned, and I know I'm not alone in this, adding loads of extra weapons removes strategy, and it's the lack of strategy that makes the game get boring. I know you can turn off some of the weapons, but the fact is that a lot of people simply won't, unless you make them.
I have to agree with that. Whenever I play WA I always play with just the classic weapon selection, otherwise people are just throwing super weapons every were and it just involves hardly any skill.

thomasp
13 Dec 2006, 16:27
I'm still wondering how an UserMod was allowed to say that the game has less options/weapons so it doesn't get boring fast.
Wish we could have an online weapon usage count in WA, it'd prove how wrong you are.
Because the user mod isn't a member of Team17 and can say whatever he wants within the forum rules. User mods are just regular members with a few more privileges.

yakuza
13 Dec 2006, 17:42
Exactly, so you expect them to have rich knowledge of the worms series and community.
Seeing that WA is still active when Fullwormage is accesible by everyone puts down any excuse of why W:OW is such an unfinished/bad product.

Plasma
13 Dec 2006, 18:06
Seeing that WA is still active when Fullwormage is accesible by everyone puts down any excuse of why W:OW is such an unfinished/bad product.
Guess who forgot how WA works...

yakuza
13 Dec 2006, 19:17
I don't get it. Might want to elaborate.

Plasma
13 Dec 2006, 19:23
In WA, FullWormage is only given to those that have completed all missions, got gold in all training missions, and have got elite in deathmatch. Somehow, I don't think they're people that only know how to play with massive weapons.

yakuza
13 Dec 2006, 20:29
You can easily download fullwormage.

Plasma
13 Dec 2006, 22:44
You can easily download fullwormage.
Most people do not know how to download the scheme unlocker.

Aoshi
13 Dec 2006, 23:13
Wow both games were kind of a let down(especially the DS), I'm rather disapointed.:(

AndrewTaylor
14 Dec 2006, 12:07
In WA, FullWormage is only given to those that have completed all missions, got gold in all training missions, and have got elite in deathmatch. Somehow, I don't think they're people that only know how to play with massive weapons.
Yes, but just going into the options when you first get the game and turning everything you can to infinite ruins the game, and yet I've lost count of how many people I've seen do that on Wormnet and not think it even slightly unusual. If they did it and said "I'm bored and just want to blow things up today" fair game, but they say "Let's play worms" and fire up the infinited holy grenades and banana bombs, and don't even consider it worth mentioning, as if that's just how the game is played.
Clearly at least some people don't know how to play without massive weapons.

Vader
14 Dec 2006, 14:13
Because if a game is designed specifically to be something that you personally don't like, and it admirably succeeds in being that thing, then it is a success. You can't criticise someone for succeeding in accomplishing exactly what they set out to do.
No, but you can criticise someone for setting out to do something completely moronic whether they succeed or not.
You can't expect to like every game, so what you should do is check up on them before you spend actual money on them, and check that they're something you like the sound of. And why shouldn't Team 17 make a Worms game that is limited and simplified for a change? Okay, perhaps it won't please you, but that's not to say it's bad.
It's not just me. It's virtually every person who has played W:OW on DS.
I know for a fact you have awful taste anyway.
That's flaming. Also, it's wrong.
Personally, I defend W:OW for two reasons. The first is that I like to go against the grain and people here don't much like it.
You're not only going against the grain, you're proving how much of an idiot you are. To defend a game as bad as this (whether intended or not) is a lost cause. It is not a well made game.
The second is because I love the tactics and mind games that Worms has, for me at least, always been about, and W:OW is an attempt to make sure that any people who come to Worms for the first time see that, instead of seeing it as a game based around roping and around picking up boxes and about turning 50 overpowered weapons to infinite ammo and generally causing havoc. If that means restricting people, then so be it. Perhaps they can get into the alternative play styles later, but it's going to be best for business, I would think, if they appreciate the core gameplay rather than seeing it as a sandbox game, which will have limited replay value, especially since it couldn't be made to work online at the time.
That's bull****. Less weapons != more tactics. Different weapon configurations will warrant different tactics and strategies. Limiting the user to a maximum of 3 customised schemes is bad design but to be fair, there are only a very limited number of configurations you could use. How is that a good thing? I'm not saying every weapon needs to take out a whole screen at a time or that you need to use every weapon at once. You're just being foolish.
I'm defending neither version because I've played neither version. I'm given to understand that the PSP version is terribly good at what it does, and the DS version was hacked together by monkeys, trained by other monkeys, and its only merit stems from the fact that despite its flaws it's still just about Worms and Worms is basically a fun game.
You've just spent half a post defending the game. The DS version is just about Worms but then there are lots of just-about-Worms games out there. I don't see you playing/defending/etc. them.
Ultimately, what I really want to say is simply that whether or not it was right for Team17 to make W:OW what it is rather than remaking W:A for the umpteenth time...
I assume by "umpteenth" you mean "third".
doesn't change the fact that going out and spending your own, hard earned money on a game that was openly and specifically designed to be something that you wouldn't like and then whinging that you don't like it is a fantastically stupid thing to do and I don't understand how people expect that complaint to be taken seriously.
How do expect people to voice an accurate and subjective opinion of something without experiencing it? Personally, I bought it knowing it would be horrible. People complain because they know Team17 are capable of better.
Because the PSP is not the PlayStation. It's played on a smaller screen, on the move, with all the inconveniences and distractions that can entail, for shorter periods, at different times by different people, with fewer controls and worse sound and one again it is not the PlayStation. What works on one does not necessarily work on the other.
That's ridiculous.
The screen size is not an issue. W:OW works on a PSP so why not release a WA style game for it instead?
The portability has never been a problem for any other handheld version of the Worms franchise. Why would a bigger screen and more power than the last handheld system be an issue? If the PSP can handle high octane racing games, I think it can manage a turn based strategy game.
The PSP has 2 less buttons and 1 more analog stick than the PlayStation, unless it was designed for DualShock in which case the PSP is lacking 1 analog stick. Besides, if W:OW works on a PSP why shouldn't WA?
You make yourself sound more and more like a troll with every post. How a UserMod is allowed to troll (and insult forum members while they're at it) is beyond me.
Go and find someone else to try and convince otherwise. We aren't at all keen on W:OW. Why is that such a crime?

AndrewTaylor
14 Dec 2006, 16:40
No, but you can criticise someone for setting out to do something completely moronic whether they succeed or not.
I dispute that anyone did anything moronic, with two possible exceptions. The first was giving the task of writing a DS version to a collective of gorrillas. The second I'll get to later.
It's not just me. It's virtually every person who has played W:OW on DS.
That's because the DS version is awful. This much has been almost universally agreed. But it's awful because it's so nearly unplayable, not because the game concept is bad.
That's flaming. Also, it's wrong.
I was only joking. I thought you knew me by now -- when have we ever agreed about anything?
You're not only going against the grain, you're proving how much of an idiot you are. To defend a game as bad as this (whether intended or not) is a lost cause. It is not a well made game.
The PSP version seems pretty well made to me. It has no major bugs that I've ever heard of; the graphics are clear and smooth; the controls are good; and so forth. What's badly made about it?
As I say, I'm well aware the DS version is awful.
That's bull****. Less weapons != more tactics.
I think it does, to some degree. The more ways you have of killing someone, the more chance there is that you can just pick one that will work from where you're currently standing and shoot. If you only have a few different weapons, then you're forced to consider which to use more carefully, as well as where you stand when you shoot it and where you retreat to. There's a balance to be struck. Too few weapons and it's purely who's the best shot with those particular weapons. Too many and you can hit any point on the map with at least one of them, so it's purely about worm placement. But there's a balance in the middle that works best, at least works best for how I like to play, and it's roughly the W:A default weapon set -- the one that has most of the weapons disabled.
Personally, I bought it knowing it would be horrible.
This is the second exception I mentioned earlier. Seriously, why did you do that?
That's ridiculous.
The screen size is not an issue. W:OW works on a PSP so why not release a WA style game for it instead?
Because games of W:A are usually multiplayer and usually last half an hour or so. That's clearly impractical on a handheld machine with no online support -- you'd be usually playing against the AI, which if you recall can only use a few of the W:A weapons, and you'd usually be playing for shorter periods, so W:A isn't the right game for the platform.
Far better, on a handheld, if you want my opinion which apparently you don't, to concentrate on writing some good AI that can use a limited weapon set cleverly to give you a decent game than spend ages making a complicated set of weapons that you'll almost never see used against you, like W:A does. If Team17 want to release and all-singing, all-dancing W:OW-style version of W:A, I'd say they'd probably be better off putting it on the home consoles where they could get online play working better and take advantage of their more social nature.
Go and find someone else to try and convince otherwise. We aren't at all keen on W:OW. Why is that such a crime?
It's not. But there is a difference between you not being keen on something and something being awful. I'm not trying to convince you to like it, but I'd rather you didn't equate that to a property of the game design when in fact it is because you bought a badly coded port of a game you didn't like. In future, I suggest you buy games you do like.
Lastly, you are insulting Team17 and citing your own opinions about the DS version of the game as cold, hard facts about both versions. Think twice before you complain about trolling.

Vader
15 Dec 2006, 21:12
I dispute that anyone did anything moronic, with two possible exceptions. The first was giving the task of writing a DS version to a collective of gorrillas. The second I'll get to later.
OK, you're right there. It's not Team17's fault that a bunch of cowboys hacked together a port for the DS. I still think the frontend is atrocious and the 'HUD' feels awkward to me (although that may just be that I've not played it for long).
But it's awful because it's so nearly unplayable, not because the game concept is bad.
I'm not saying the game concept is bad, per sé, I'm just saying there are better game concepts which they've already made. Why regress to an inferior version? I mean, if you were given all the options of WA (and yes, I realise that would be too much for a handheld game but just to take it to the extreme...) and you wanted the Worms/Reinforcements/United experience, you'd be able to make a scheme for it. I'm not saying it's not a valid style of play, but why restrict the player so much?
I was only joking. I thought you knew me by now -- when have we ever agreed about anything?
I thought you knew me by now. ;)
The PSP version seems pretty well made to me. It has no major bugs that I've ever heard of; the graphics are clear and smooth; the controls are good; and so forth. What's badly made about it?
Aside from the abhorent functionality in-game, if the PSP shares the same front-end and limitations as it's DS port then that is what's badly made about it.
I think it does, to some degree. The more ways you have of killing someone, the more chance there is that you can just pick one that will work from where you're currently standing and shoot.
The more ways your opponent has to kill you, the more you have to try and find a survival strategy. Almost every scheme is strategic, it just depends on what you prefer. As I say, why restrict the player?
This is the second exception I mentioned earlier. Seriously, why did you do that?
Two reason. Firstly, I needed some closure. I had heard how bad it was but was determined that I'd enjoy it. To some degree I do; I find it enjoyable but I find it extremely limited. As a result I'm under the impression it will have little longevity. Secondly, it was £7.50 so given the first reason, I felt obliged to buy it and I'm glad I did.
Because games of W:A are usually multiplayer and usually last half an hour or so. That's clearly impractical on a handheld machine with no online support.
Both the PSP and DS offer the ability to play hot-seat, local wireless (including game sharing/download play respectively) and wifi games. Online play is not a problem for these machines. Also, the batteries on these machines last more than enough time for a few games online and then some. You do you realise there are people who play for hours at a time online, don't you?
If Team17 want to release and all-singing, all-dancing W:OW-style version of W:A, I'd say they'd probably be better off putting it on the home consoles where they could get online play working better and take advantage of their more social nature.
Online play we've discussed but I've got to say that since I got my DS I've done more social gaming on that than any other console. To me this generation of handheld gaming devices are as much home consoles as portable ones.
It's not. But there is a difference between you not being keen on something and something being awful. I'm not trying to convince you to like it, but I'd rather you didn't equate that to a property of the game design when in fact it is because you bought a badly coded port of a game you didn't like.
Well, I think how good or bad something is, in an industry as cut-throat as the gaming industry, what's good and bad is most frequently gauged by the public's reaction. As a member of the public and fan of the Worms series I belive my opinion is as important as anyone else's. Therefore, from my point of view, if I don't like something and I think it's awful, then it is awful and I will voice my opinion just as every one else does. There's no crime in that.
ILastly, you are insulting Team17 and citing your own opinions about the DS version of the game as cold, hard facts about both versions. Think twice before you complain about trolling.
I never cited my opinions as cold hard fact any more than you did. Do I really need to say "In my opinion," before everything I say?
I'm not insulting Team17. I'm saying I think they're capable of impressing me more. I believe in them so I am honest about how I perceive their games.

AndrewTaylor
15 Dec 2006, 22:43
I thought you knew me by now. ;)
Ah, damn you!
Aside from the abhorent functionality in-game, if the PSP shares the same front-end and limitations as it's DS port then that is what's badly made about it.I think since neither of us has played it we probably shouldn't argue this point.
Both the PSP and DS offer the ability to play hot-seat, local wireless (including game sharing/download play respectively) and wifi games. Online play is not a problem for these machines. It was when W:OW was being planned. Team17 have said this again and again: online was never a possibility for this game.
The rest, fair enough.

kikumbob
18 Dec 2006, 18:41
Yes, but just going into the options when you first get the game and turning everything you can to infinite ruins the game, and yet I've lost count of how many people I've seen do that on Wormnet and not think it even slightly unusual. If they did it and said "I'm bored and just want to blow things up today" fair game, but they say "Let's play worms" and fire up the infinited holy grenades and banana bombs, and don't even consider it worth mentioning, as if that's just how the game is played.
Clearly at least some people don't know how to play without massive weapons. On the rare occasion that I bring my laptop into school we usually end up playing worms armageddon in our lunch break. Pretty much all of my friends are not as in to worms as I have been (they dont hang around the communities etc.) and for the first few games we played they insisted on playing with all weapons on infinite. And I have to say it was very enjoyable. Its just a different style of playing. It lasts for a fraction of the time but in that fraction we all have great fun with it all and laugh and rejoice and bash our heads against the table.
Its just another type of game that you can play on worms and some people don't like it and some people do. I sympathise, however, at the times when people join a game and someone says "lets play normal worms" and only when the game starts do you work out that you are actually playing with full wormage (usually alerted by the fact that somone drops a concrete donkey on their own worms >_<). And I seriously think that, indeed AT, for some people thats the only way they know how to play worms. It gets boring.
Do I have a point? No i dont think so. Its just a long, babbling story that goes around in circles.

Vader
19 Dec 2006, 14:05
It was when W:OW was being planned. Team17 have said this again and again: online was never a possibility for this game.
I'm not sure I understand why. The hardware is capable and it's not like you're forced to use Friend Codes or anything. I mean, it's wifi. Wifi out of the box. Surely it had the opportunity to seize that potential?
I dunno, the whole online thing is such a small part of my DS experience that I don't really miss it. As I say, the DS has been a more sociable device for me so far that any other console I've had. I mean, having 8 people playing multiplayer Mario Kart round a big table is infinitely more fun than playing 7 other people over WFC.
I just think that if I'd had the opportunity to use Download Play and fine-tune the settings the way I like them then they'd have had a much happier fanboy. ;)

AndrewTaylor
19 Dec 2006, 15:36
I don't know. I've never tried to program network play on a Nintendo DS or on a PSP. Nor, probably, will I ever try. I expect its more a question of devkits and APIs and things. In theory, anything the hardware can do is possible, but that doesn't mean to say that it's practical to program it.
But as I say, I've really nothing to go on beyone what T17 have said on this board.
Edit: Yes, having a load of people round and playing MarioKart is great fun. We use the GameCube for that, though. For one thing it only requires one Cube to do. I doubt if I know eight people with DSes.

Vader
20 Dec 2006, 20:58
Edit: Yes, having a load of people round and playing MarioKart is great fun. We use the GameCube for that, though. For one thing it only requires one Cube to do. I doubt if I know eight people with DSes.
I guess life is quite different when gaming is your job. Most of my colleagues have both a DS and a PSP; funny how I never see any of them playing on their PSPs, heh.
Does anyone know how PSP sales of W:OW compared to those on the DS?

parsley
21 Dec 2006, 15:54
I'm not sure I understand why.
Simply time and money, that's all.

Vercetti
22 Dec 2006, 03:32
It must hurt some of the developer's pride, seeing this topic title at the top all the time. If I was team17, I wouldn't want such a negative topic so easily visible to any potential game buyers but I guess hiding opinions would not be a good thing either.
BTW disapointment should be spelt disappointment. Don't forget to pee!

Pieboy337
22 Dec 2006, 15:37
BTW disapointment should be spelt disappointment. Don't forget to pee!
Your a cheeky one arnt you?

Vader
22 Dec 2006, 22:56
Simply time and money, that's all.
That's a real shame. :(
It must hurt some of the developer's pride, seeing this topic title at the top all the time. If I was team17, I wouldn't want such a negative topic so easily visible to any potential game buyers but I guess hiding opinions would not be a good thing either.
Art without criticism is just words, sounds and pictures.

quakerworm
23 Dec 2006, 07:24
I don't know. I've never tried to program network play on a Nintendo DS or on a PSP. Nor, probably, will I ever try. I expect its more a question of devkits and APIs and things. In theory, anything the hardware can do is possible, but that doesn't mean to say that it's practical to program it.
i don't know much about ds, but i can make a few notes on psp network, and some of these should be the same for two systems.
the api should be the same for ad-hoc and infrastructure. application needs only to create a socket, and the operating system takes care of using whichever physical layer is available to deliver the packets. wow on psp uses udp for ad-hoc, because it is easy enough to just send the same packet multiple times on the software level, and eliminate the need to await replies. with infrastructure, t17 would probably be better off with tcp, but that is a matter of network design, and not of api.
one part that is slightly different is the creation of physical connection. i do not think that psp would be trying to maintain an ad-hoc network at all times that the wifi switch is on, so either way, the application will need to make a request for a connection. for an ad-hoc, no additional user input is necessary. for infrastructure, the system must allow the user to select a connection from the list. api for this part might be slightly different. still, unless sony was intentionally trying to make it as difficult as possible for the developer, i do not see how this could be an issue.
finally, in case of the infrastructure, the game will require additional menus and code for connection to w-net name server and selection of available games. but again, this is not a question of api or hardware. once the host is chosen, the only difference between infrastructure and ad-hoc is the quality and delays of packet transmission.

alex atkin
30 Dec 2006, 00:41
After reading all this people seem to miss the point of the PSP in my view.
The PSP isnt "just" a handheld. By making it near PS2 power people expected it to be a portable PS2. In other word, something they can play REAL console games on not cut-down portable versions. Its designed for LONG car journeys (easily fit in a whole round of WA) not a quick bash while waiting for the bus.
Most people who play the PSP play for FAR longer periods than any other handheld console. Many people use it instead of taking their console round to their friends house and having to find a spare TV, you can take the PSP and have a LAN party without needing a car to get your PC there. THATS what I see the PSP as being designed for and its how I see people using it. THATS why WOW sucks, because it was designed to be play in short bursts and people dont play Worms for that. Worms was never intended for playing a 10 minute game and shouldnt be cut-down to that, or at least if it is then you should have the option to enable/disable it as an option.
I have WWP on my T-Mobile Vario, its 320x240 resolution and almost as good as the PC version. The screen is FAR smaller than the PSP and its still playable so the screen size argument is complete garbade. WWP/WA can EASILY fit into the PSP screen and it would look amazing and the PSP easily has enough battery life to last a whole round (3 half hour matches) too especially if you arent going nuts with 3D animated backgrounds wasting battery power. Perhaps you could even underclock the PSP down a bit to improve battery life even more (I dont know if the devkit lets you do that but I know the console itself is capable).
Im looking forward to the Xbox Live Arcade version but hugely dissapointed on PSP. I dont hate it, but its certainly not as fun as WA by a long shot and I just find myself not wanting to play it especially compared to the almost fully features WWP on my PDA.

Squirminator2k
30 Dec 2006, 01:48
The PSP isnt "just" a handheld.
I was going to leave your post alone, but then I re-read this little gem and now I have to take everything you've said and slice it, dice it, then feed it to the birds. Honestly, you're just trying to make my life hard.
After reading all this people seem to miss the point of the PSP in my view.
I agree - loads of people missed the point of the PSP entirely. Unfortunately most of those people actually work for Sony, and therein lies the first of many problems.
The PSP isnt "just" a handheld. By making it near PS2 power people expected it to be a portable PS2. In other word, something they can play REAL console games on not cut-down portable versions. Its designed for LONG car journeys (easily fit in a whole round of WA) not a quick bash while waiting for the bus.
Presumably it's designed for "LONG car journeys" because of the obscene loading times? The PSP was, I think designed to be more of a Multimedia hub than the GameBoy or the DS. The problem with this approach is that no one can sit and play a complex 3D game on a handheld regardless of the screen size. This is why Crash XS on the GBA was so pants.
Most people who play the PSP play for FAR longer periods than any other handheld console.
Where the Hell are you getting that from?! I play my PSP for less than an hour a week, and that's to play either WOW or Lemmings (the latter doesn't get much playtime now anyway because I own the PS2 version). I play the DS for at least an hour a day because I have Animal Crossing: Wild World and Brain Training, but also because Mario Kart DS, Tetris DS and Metroid Prime: Hunters are still keeping me hooked after all this time, as it New Super Mario Bros. - the only people playing the PSP for "FAR longer periods" are people who don't know any better, I think. These people are going to get really friendly with their opticians inside of a year, too.
The PSP is also very clearly not designed for "FAR longer periods" because the battery dies inside of seventeen minutes (which is, of course, an exaggeration before you throw a "Yes, but..." at me.)
Many people use it instead of taking their console round to their friends house and having to find a spare TV, you can take the PSP and have a LAN party without needing a car to get your PC there. THATS what I see the PSP as being designed for and its how I see people using it.
Except they get to their friends' place and discover that their friend is playing on a DS, or a Wii, or a 360, or perhaps even a PS2, because those are consoles worth spending money on. The LAN theory fails on such an utterly high level because not that many people own one.
THATS why WOW sucks, because it was designed to be play in short bursts and people dont play Worms for that. Worms was never intended for playing a 10 minute game and shouldnt be cut-down to that, or at least if it is then you should have the option to enable/disable it as an option.
But you're forgetting that the reason why most people own handheld consoles is precisely for this - short bursts. Something to do on the way to work; during your lunchbreak; while you're waiting for Torchwood to start; when your Grandmother is boring the Hell out of you. Handhelds are not designed for huge, engrossing RPGs or games that require large amoutns of time to play. This is why whenever a "big" game comes out a handheld they generally include a "Save Anywhere" option - case in point, Pokémon, some of the Final Fantasy GBA ports, Super Mario 64 DS.
I have WWP on my T-Mobile Vario, its 320x240 resolution and almost as good as the PC version. The screen is FAR smaller than the PSP and its still playable so the screen size argument is complete garbade. WWP/WA can EASILY fit into the PSP screen and it would look amazing and the PSP easily has enough battery life to last a whole round (3 half hour matches) too especially if you arent going nuts with 3D animated backgrounds wasting battery power. Perhaps you could even underclock the PSP down a bit to improve battery life even more (I dont know if the devkit lets you do that but I know the console itself is capable).
But it won't happen, will it? Sony want developers to put their expensive hardware to use, otherwise they've wasted their money. This is why WOW has unnecessary (but pretty) 3D models in the background with a layer of blur. On the DS it's just a flat layer and it works just as well, IMHO.
Im looking forward to the Xbox Live Arcade version but hugely dissapointed on PSP. I dont hate it, but its certainly not as fun as WA by a long shot and I just find myself not wanting to play it especially compared to the almost fully features WWP on my PDA.
You're going to be even more disappointed then, seeing as Worms HD looks to be a straight port of WOW. Your comments about WWP for the PDA aside, you seem to have totally missed the point of WOW - it's a back-to-basics Worms game that brushes away a lot of the complexities of the previous titles and makes it easier for people who have never played a Worms game before to get involved. If someone picks up WOW, likes it, and then spots Worms Armageddon going for £5 on the Sold Out PC Budget label, then fair play to them. WOW is a stripped back Worms, a back-to-basics Worms that is largely hit and slightly miss. If it happens to upset people who wanted More Weapons, More Explosions, More OMFG, then... well, good. To be honest these people are cretinous morons and we will get nowhere trying to appeal to them all of the time.
What's that old saying? "You can't make everyone happy." Truer words, in this case, were ne'er spoken. I, like pretty much everyone I know, love the PSP version of WOW. It's probably the second-best "classic" Worms game in my opinion (classic being pre-Worms 2, and you may argue the semantics of this if you like but you'd only make a fool out of yourself), right behind WormsDC.
So what have we learnt today? We have learnt that Alex knows a lot of words, and that he knows how to spell and punctuate them correctly. However, like most people in the Internet, he's got the completely wrong end of the stick. I like WOW, don't get me wrong, but Alex's statements are 95% bullpat. Shame, really.

quakerworm
30 Dec 2006, 05:18
s2k, you have some good points, but did you have to go and be all fanboy in that post? alex is absolutely right. psp was designed to be a portable power-console, and it wasn't meant for kids who need something to do on their 15 minute trip on the school bus. sony's marketing division doesn't seem to be able to grasp it, but the system's design speaks for itself. the only exception is the battery life, but that's why the door is so easy to pop open, and the charger unit is small enough to carry with you.
it is true that games that actually fit this design are few, but they do exist. gta and burnout come to mind. and that how often your friends will have psps might depend on country, city, and your social circle. almost all of my friends who have a portable console of any kind have a psp. they are perfect for running deathmatches at a cafe or a bar/pub. i don't know if you ever tried to set up a wireless lan deathmatch on laptops at a bar between 4+ people, but psps work out much better.
now, psp might not fit your particular life style, and that's fine, but that's exactly why alex's comments make much more sense. the kind of person who will get a psp will not enjoy wow nearly as much as they would a straight wa port. that makes wow a poor game for psp. was wow a good game for a nintendo ds? i don't know. ds is not my type of system, and i'm not the best person to make that judgment.

Squirminator2k
30 Dec 2006, 09:56
s2k, you have some good points, but did you have to go and be all fanboy in that post?
I hate that word - "Fanboy". It gets batted about on the web a lot these days by people who can't think of a better way to get their argument across than to apply a negative, abusive term to their opposition and then restate all of their points, again, in a shallow attempt to make themselves seem superior and right, which they aren't, most likely on both counts. I don't think anything I said was fuelled by Fanboyism of any particular company, be it Team 17, Nintendo, or whoever. My comments about WOW are sound - it's a bare bones game for people who haven't played Worms before, and if you want to get someone into the game it's a good place to start, just as Worms HD will be. My comments about the PSP are no less true today than they were yesterday, nor than they were when I originally made these points a couple of months ago.
alex is absolutely right.
No he's not, but do go on.
psp was designed to be a portable power-console, and it wasn't meant for kids who need something to do on their 15 minute trip on the school bus. sony's marketing division doesn't seem to be able to grasp it, but the system's design speaks for itself. the only exception is the battery life, but that's why the door is so easy to pop open, and the charger unit is small enough to carry with you.
But by designing a "portable power-console", Sony have completely missed the point of what the handheld market is supposed to be about and what made the Game Boy such a resounding success. They've tried to make a portable entertainment hub, not a handheld gaming console, and they have failed. Had they used a pre-existing format as opposed to creating UMDs, or had they just sucked it up and used a card system such as that of the DS (or, perhaps, the Memory Stick Pro - when your Memory Card can hold more data than the medium the game is stored on, you have a problem I think) the system may not be the flop it is today. Sony leapt into the handheld market with no idea as to what kept Nintendo going for two nearly two decades, and they designed a PSP around that failed ethos. The console's size is irrelevant - Tiger's Game.com was small, and had plenty of features, but that doesn't make it any less sh*t.
The DS outsells the PSP four units to one here in the UK. The Xbox is outselling the PSP in Japan, and everyone knows how well Microsoft's consoles have gone down in the land of the rising sun. The world knows Sony have produced a piece of crap. I own a PSP, having picked it up in the States last October, and a year on I regret it. I own three games. Three. Two of those games are available to play in equal quality on the PS2, and the other is WOW. 'Nuff said.
it is true that games that actually fit this design are few, but they do exist. gta and burnout come to mind.
Yes, Burnout isn't that bad on the PSP. But GTA could've been better. Had they included a Save Anywhere feature then maybe it wouldn't have been so bad. Have you not thought that maybe the reason Rockstar ported the game (originally marketed as a "PSP EXCLUSIVE") to the PS2 is because sales of the game, and the console itself, were so abhorrently poor? Is this not perhaps the reason why Sony decided to port Lemmings to the PS2 when that too was marketed as a PSP exclusive? WOW is a solid game on the PSP (the externally developed DS version is dismal, probably the second-worst handheld Worms game ever created, and I do hope Team 17 have learnt from their mistakes and decide to develop the next DS Worms game themselves), so no wonder they're recycling most of that work for the Live Arcade version of Worms - they've created all of this splendid work, and people should be able to see it. They can't, because no one owns a PSP. Shocking, I know.
and that how often your friends will have psps might depend on country, city, and your social circle.
I refer my honourable colleague to the comment I made regarding DS:PSP sales ratios a moment ago.
almost all of my friends who have a portable console of any kind have a psp.
Poor them - shall i send them some grapes? A card, maybe? Do Hallmark make "Get a decent handheld soon" cards?
they are perfect for running deathmatches at a cafe or a bar/pub. i don't know if you ever tried to set up a wireless lan deathmatch on laptops at a bar between 4+ people, but psps work out much better.
With laptops you have so many different models & manufacturers of both laptop and networking equipment. With the PSP it's all unified - one model, one method of wireless communication. The exact same can be said of the DS, or the Gizmondo, or the GP2X, or even the Game Boy Advance if you're using the Wireless Communicator. That the PSP can do exactly the same thing that a million other pieces of wireless equipment can do is utterly ordinary.
now, psp might not fit your particular life style, and that's fine, but that's exactly why alex's comments make much more sense. the kind of person who will get a psp will not enjoy wow nearly as much as they would a straight wa port. that makes wow a poor game for psp. was wow a good game for a nintendo ds? i don't know. ds is not my type of system, and i'm not the best person to make that judgment.
The DS version of WOW was, as previously stated, bollocks. Team 17 didn't develop it themselves and, as is the case with almost all handheld Worms games, it was utter trash - only marginally less worse than the Game Boy Color version of WA. However the PSP is utterly fantastic. All of my PSP-owning friends (this is, by the way, two people) love it. But the PSP is not the ideal console to play it on, which is why I hope Team 17 develop the next DS Worms game themselves next time.
I'm actually glad that Worms HD is going to based so much on WOW, because it's a brilliant pick-up-and-play game. Worms 2 right through to Worms World Party is, well, not so much. Those games are geared towards people who have been playing Worms for years while WOW is for people who have been playing Worms since the beginning, as well as people who haven't been playing it at all. What have they been missing, eh? Well, maybe playing WOW will show them, and encourage them to buy W2, WA and WWP for the PC. You can pick up all three and snag Worms 3D now all for no more than £10 thanks to Sold Out.
Now, as I stated above, I think the word "Fanboy" is a horrible one. However both yourselves and Alex have displayed more than ample evidence of self-evident PSP Fanboyism. Don't worry, there is treatment available - all you need to do is book an appointment with your GP. There may be minor surgery involved (they'e got to get that stick out of your backside somehow) but generally it's a painless procedure. I know - I've had it myself. I was once in love with the PSP. I came to my senses, though. I'm sure you will too, some day. When you grow up.

Spadge
30 Dec 2006, 10:15
I'm not sure I understand why. The hardware is capable and it's not like you're forced to use Friend Codes or anything. I mean, it's wifi. Wifi out of the box. Surely it had the opportunity to seize that potential?
I dunno, the whole online thing is such a small part of my DS experience that I don't really miss it. As I say, the DS has been a more sociable device for me so far that any other console I've had. I mean, having 8 people playing multiplayer Mario Kart round a big table is infinitely more fun than playing 7 other people over WFC.
I just think that if I'd had the opportunity to use Download Play and fine-tune the settings the way I like them then they'd have had a much happier fanboy. ;)
Have said this before, but here we go:
The game was developed in the latter part of 2004 and early 2005. During this time, the DS online side wasn't available to 3rd party developers (there were NO online titles at this time) so no plans were made to support/develop it. By the time the game was ready (and had been through the 4-5 month testing cycle etc) online games (1st party, Nintendo releases...) started to appear but it wasn't something you could simply retrofit I'm afraid. The game did support wifi multiplayer locally, obviously (same on PSP).

TintinWorm
30 Dec 2006, 17:54
Um...the xbox is not outselling the psp in Japan. Here are the sales for december 18-24:(I've checked sales figures since 2005 or so. The xbox has never beaten the PSP, and neither has the 360).
- Nintendo DS Lite - 485,584
- Wii - 279,277
- PSP - 138,588
- PlayStation 3 - 76,882
- PlayStation 2 - 46,209
- Xbox 360 - 17,213
It's selling quite well, actually. The sales pale in comparison to the DS lite, but that doesn't mean it has failed. I own both, and although I prefer the DS, I use my PSP a lot.

Plasma
30 Dec 2006, 18:32
Um...the xbox is not outselling the psp in Japan. Here are the sales for december 18-24:(I've checked sales figures since 2005 or so. The xbox has never beaten the PSP, and neither has the 360).
- Nintendo DS Lite - 485,584
- Wii - 279,277
- PSP - 138,588
- PlayStation 3 - 76,882
- PlayStation 2 - 46,209
- Xbox 360 - 17,213
It's selling quite well, actually. The sales pale in comparison to the DS lite, but that doesn't mean it has failed. I own both, and although I prefer the DS, I use my PSP a lot.
1: I can't help but notice that you've completely excluded the Xbox in that list. Which is a very big point when you're trying to compare sales in the Xbox to something else.
2: What's your secource for this anyway?

Vercetti
30 Dec 2006, 21:00
The Xbox is outselling the PSP in Japan, and everyone knows how well Microsoft's consoles have gone down in the land of the rising sun.
Japanese hardware sales, 18 Dec - 24 Dec (http://www.joystiq.com/2006/12/29/japanese-hardware-sales-18-dec-24-dec-shameless-recap-editio/)
Xbox actually made double digits, 11 units sold!

bonz
30 Dec 2006, 21:51
Xbox actually made double digits, 11 units sold!
Well, that's a whopping 266.67% increase though.

Squirminator2k
30 Dec 2006, 21:55
I may be referring to info from an old Edge Magazine. And, I will concede, I may be referring to an entirely different console altogether. My apologies.
However that does not make my points any less valid. In fact both Tintin and Vercetti have added more fuel to my argument that the PSP really isn't much of a handheld system. The only reason people buy it (and, indeed, the only reason people by PlayStations at all) is because of the marketing hype Sony build up around the consoles.
But that's a different issue altogether. The question at hand is "Is WOW good?" to which the answer is a resounding "Yes, now stop asking me you idiot childman."

iceydragon
30 Dec 2006, 22:31
However that does not make my points any less valid. In fact both Tintin and Vercetti have added more fuel to my argument that the PSP really isn't much of a handheld system. The only reason people buy it (and, indeed, the only reason people by PlayStations at all) is because of the marketing hype Sony build up around the consoles.
As much as i loathe Sony at the moment for their attitude around the launch of the Playstation 3, I think that is somewhat an unfair comment to make. The PSP's main function is to play games, and most people buy it, to play games funnily enough. The fact that it does 'other functions' is a nice extra, much like you can browse the internet on Wii, listen to music and watch video on 360 etc. It doesn't matter how much Sony are marketing as 'the ultimate handheld entertainment system', people still realise it's main function is a gaming machine.
Having just a 'games console' isn't enough anymore in this day and age, and now we can see this happening with handhelds also with the PSP. Even the Nintendo DS has add on extras for MP3's and Web Browsing.
About W:OW, it's feature set may be a little skinny compared to previous titles, but it still plays a decent game of Worms. I never complained back in the 90's about the feature set on the original, and I am not complaining now.
In fact, I am honestly more happy with having the original set of weapons then having a huge arsenal like Worms Armageddon. The problem I find is people who play Worms Armageddon...they can't be bothered to aim, and rely on Ninja Ropes to 'drop' a powerful weapon on their foes and then swing away.
Sometimes you have to go backwards to go forwards again. Trying to reinvent a game over and over again is probably hard work, especially one that has been running for all these years.

Squirminator2k
30 Dec 2006, 22:39
As much as i loathe Sony at the moment for their attitude around the launch of the Playstation 3, I think that is somewhat an unfair comment to make. The PSP's main function is to play games, and most people buy it, to play games funnily enough. The fact that it does 'other functions' is a nice extra, much like you can browse the internet on Wii, listen to music and watch video on 360 etc. It doesn't matter how much Sony are marketing as 'the ultimate handheld entertainment system', people still realise it's main function is a gaming machine.
But the problem is that Sony manufacture and design the things, and there is a worrying trend of PlayStation consoles being able to play your music, watch your DVDs, organise your MP3s, and... oh, it might play games as well, I guess.
These are not new arguments, though. I'm getting lots of "Yeah but..." but nothing new, and nothing I haven't already successfully argued against in previous points.
Having just a 'games console' isn't enough anymore in this day and age, and now we can see this happening with handhelds also with the PSP. Even the Nintendo DS has add on extras for MP3's and Web Browsing.
Yes, but they're optional. The DS Lite is £95. If you want to browse the web it's an extra £25, if you want to listen to your MP3s with it it's another £30. They didn't bundle it in by default and inflate the price as necessary. They're not Sony - Nintendo design games consoles. Sony design entertainment hardware, create brand new proprietary formats for it, expect everyone to buy their DVD collection again at an inflated price with none of the extras, release sub-par games, allow PSone emulation but require the PS3 to take advantage of it, and then wonder why their handheld, the "most beautiful thing in the world," isn't selling as well as the DS which is less powerful and has fewer features. By Sony's logic, more powerful + more features = better. But that's flawed math, quite clearly.
About W:OW, it's feature set may be a little skinny compared to previous titles, but it still plays a decent game of Worms. I never complained back in the 90's about the feature set on the original, and I am not complaining now.
In fact, I am honestly more happy with having the original set of weapons then having a huge arsenal like Worms Armageddon. The problem I find is people who play Worms Armageddon...they can't be bothered to aim, and rely on Ninja Ropes to 'drop' a powerful weapon on their foes and then swing away.
Sometimes you have to go backwards to go forwards again. Trying to reinvent a game over and over again is probably hard work, especially one that has been running for all these years.
AT LAST, some common sense in this thread!

AndrewTaylor
30 Dec 2006, 23:26
Having just a 'games console' isn't enough anymore in this day and age, and now we can see this happening with handhelds also with the PSP. Even the Nintendo DS has add on extras for MP3's and Web Browsing.
Erm, I hate to point this out to you, but surely the very fact that the machine that can't surf the web or play MP3s is outselling the machine that can do those things proves that playing games is enough.
The Game Gear had an addon that let it watch TV. The Game Boy had an addon that made it a camera, or a PDA, or a printer. If you want a handheld device to play MP3s and browse the internet, most people will go for a phone that does those things, because they're generally better at it and less bulky, and they can get their phone company to subsidise the purchase.

quakerworm
30 Dec 2006, 23:44
I hate that word - "Fanboy".
fine. your opinions were very biased. happy?
But by designing a "portable power-console", Sony have completely missed the point of what the handheld market is supposed to be about and what made the Game Boy such a resounding success.
and that would have been a good argument if sony was trying to release a direct competitor to the nintendo's handhelds. only they didn't. you need only to see that the systems are entirely different in the very philosophy of the design to realize that. the psp was released for a different market. i did not need a handheld until psp came along, because the endless gameboys nor the ds have given me what i needed from a system. psp did, and so i bought it. same for many other psp owners. for you, a ds might make a better console, but that's exactly what makes you a poor judge of psp games.
Yes, Burnout isn't that bad on the PSP. But GTA could've been better. Had they included a Save Anywhere feature then maybe it wouldn't have been so bad.
save anywhere feature would require a complete redesign of the missions system. it wouldn't be anything like gta. gta for psp was made for the kind of people that wanted gta3 on the portable system. as such, it was a success. again, it doesn't make much sense from the perspective of the classic handhelds, but it fits the psp design perfectly.
Have you not thought that maybe the reason Rockstar ported the game (originally marketed as a "PSP EXCLUSIVE") to the PS2 is because sales of the game, and the console itself, were so abhorrently poor?
it was because of all the people who whined that they wanted it on ps2. every other thread on gtaforums was about that at the time. many of these people gave in and bought a psp just to play gta lcs before it was announced for ps2. and if you want further proof that it wasn't a flop, rockstar released a second gta for psp, the vice city stories. would they bother with a second game if the first failed miserably? no, they'd cut their losses and move on.
I refer my honourable colleague to the comment I made regarding DS:PSP sales ratios a moment ago.
sales aren't the defining element here. yes, there is more market for the ds. but the people who buy a psp aren't the people who buy the ds, in the majority. that's the important element. the two systems are entirely different, and a person for whom a ds works well, should not judge the game on psp. that is the whole point here.
Poor them - shall i send them some grapes? A card, maybe? Do Hallmark make "Get a decent handheld soon" cards?
and you were complaining about me calling you a fanboy?
With laptops you have so many different models & manufacturers of both laptop and networking equipment. With the PSP it's all unified - one model, one method of wireless communication. The exact same can be said of the DS, or the Gizmondo, or the GP2X, or even the Game Boy Advance if you're using the Wireless Communicator. That the PSP can do exactly the same thing that a million other pieces of wireless equipment can do is utterly ordinary.
it's not about unified. it's about bringing the power of a decent console into an environment where it could not exist before. none of the other systems do that. psp gives you a platform on which you can run a decent deathmatch in a bar. other systems don't. that's the marketing niche, it might be narrow, but it is distinct, and entirely different from ds marketing niche.
The DS version of WOW was, as previously stated, bollocks. Team 17 didn't develop it themselves and, as is the case with almost all handheld Worms games, it was utter trash - only marginally less worse than the Game Boy Color version of WA.
i am not talking about how it was developed. i am talking about the game itself. the whole point here is that you, as a person who prefers nintendo ds, like the wow. it was a game made based on classical handheld philosophy, and that makes sense. people who prefer a psp prefer different kind of games. they don't care about being able to play the game as soon as you pull the system out of your book bag. they care about games that can be played with friends for hours. these are people who want worms armageddon on their handheld. and these are the people who didn't like wow. the irony of the game turning out much better on psp is notable, but irrelevant.
Now, as I stated above, I think the word "Fanboy" is a horrible one. However both yourselves and Alex have displayed more than ample evidence of self-evident PSP Fanboyism.
find me a single place up there where i say that psp is better system than ds? having trouble? ok. how about sony better than nintendo? no? would you like me to point out the places where you make fun of psp? trying to show that it ds is better? because i can find at least 3 such quotes just in the post i was replying to. after all that you think i am a fanboy? you seriously need to have your circuits checked.

AndrewTaylor
31 Dec 2006, 00:15
it's not about unified. it's about bringing the power of a decent console into an environment where it could not exist before. none of the other systems do that. psp gives you a platform on which you can run a decent deathmatch in a bar. other systems don't. that's the marketing niche, it might be narrow, but it is distinct, and entirely different from ds marketing niche.
A few points on this:
1. The DS is not in a marketing "niche". The PSP is firmly in a niche. The DS is mass market.
2. I have been to a lot of bars and never once seen anyone playing a handheld gaming device there. Nobody does that. Nobody in the world. People who are that nerdy that when they go to a bar they would actually rather spend the evening playing games on a PSP than interacting directly with other humans don't have any friends. They stay at home and play FPS games against people in other countries.
I mean, where does one play this magical portable power-console? The only place I can think of that wouldn't be ridiculous -- indeed the only place I have ever seen a PSP that wasn't bolted to a display case in GAME -- is on the train. Long commutes are ideal ground for playing long games on a small machine, but most people who regularly make long commutes have actual work to do, or take the opportunity to have a nap. (Or, once again, interact with other humans.) And you know, half the PSPs I've seen on trains were lying on the table playing music, with nary a game in sight. Which is fine for Sony's It's Not Just A Console line, but they'll get no money from sales that way. (It's worth pointing out that I've never seen anyone purchase, watch or mention a UMD movie.)
I understand that the PSP offers something that the DS doesn't, but you're going to have to help me out here because I really have no idea why anyone would what what it offers. I can't really think of any reason I'd want to play home console style games on a handheld machine. This is what I think S2K was saying about Sony having missed the point of the handheld market: a handheld games console is not something you pick up and think "I'm going to spend an hour doing this mission now". It's something -- at least, to me -- that you pick up because your bus isn't due for ten minutes and you're bored. Something for killing time, often in small amounts. And games have to be different to suit that, and the PSP isn't different; it's... well, it's a portable PlayStation, isn't it?

TintinWorm
31 Dec 2006, 00:39
Well, I'm sure I'm one of the only people who do this, but I own a PSP, DS, andGBA but no consoles whatsoever. I don't know why. But I just prefer handheld consoles for some reason. I mean, I like being able to watch the latest Arsenal match (they lost to sheffield united? HOW? Sheffield didn't even have a proper goalkeeper for the last half hour or so) while playing pro evo or something. I've never really liked consoles. I'm more of a PC person, but I like handhelds too.
But AndrewTaylor has a point. The only people I've seen using a PSP outside are:
-spoiled little children at restaurants ignoring their families
-lazy students playing the PSP at school instead of studying

quakerworm
31 Dec 2006, 00:59
around here, people don't start flooding into bars until well after 2200. until then, it is a good place to just hang out with friends. there are also some cafes where the same can be done, but in a city where half the population are university students, there are significantly more bars. the primary purpose of meetings in such places is, of course, conversation, but while talking, one can also do other things, such as drinking beer, or running a gta deathmatch. the conversation in the later case doesn't change much, except for occasional outbursts when someone is caught off guard.
we don't play worms. in fact, i think i'm the only one with the game. that, in itself, isn't a problem, because nobody would mind passing the system around. it just isn't as fun. i'm sure that if wow was more like armageddon, it would be different, and it would be one of the games that is often played.
myself, i really don't play wow either. first of all, it isn't nearly as fun playing against the ai. second, i don't have these waiting for the bus moments. i walk to most places, and if something is too far to walk, i drive. you can't really play a handheld game while walking or driving, so the only time i'd have to play a short game on a handheld is while waiting at my dentist's office for my bi-annual checkup.
maybe, my environment, my friends, and myself are extremely unique. maybe there are almost no other people like us, and nintendo ds is a better console for everybody else but us few weirdos. maybe. but that still doesn't put s2k into any better position to judge psp games. maybe people like us, for whom psp makes sense are few, but we can still decide what games are better for us, and these make better games for the platform. after all, everybody else will buy a ds.

SiN
1 Jan 2007, 15:45
I have two quick points to make:
* The PSP is a nice system, but ultimately, some of it's games are rather flawed. quaker, I fall right into Sony's "target market" and I can clearly see that. You say that the PSP is easy to set up LAN games for, but really the DS is easier, since the game-sharing option is used alot more. I've never had a wifi game on the PSP because every time I do bump into someone with a PSP, we never manage to have the same game. The DS on the other hand, I've played with a couple of strangers now. :)
The other thing is I completely disagree about the GTA point, it's designed terribly. Sure, it might not be for the "15 school bus trip" but surely it's for the "20 minute subway commute to work"? Because that's where I get all my gaming done nowadays! Save anywhere would have worked fine ... you can't save on missions, and when you're off missions, saving just saves your stats, not the status of the world. So when you load back, you start at your apartment, but your stats are retained.
* s2k, I know the PSP has crap games, but do yourself a favour and pick up Lumines and Loco Roco. You'll thank me later. :)
SiN

Squirminator2k
1 Jan 2007, 17:47
fine. your opinions were very biased. happy?
My opinions were unbiased as a gamer. If they happen to side with the system with the better catalogue of games, and happen to disagree with your opinions, then that doesn't make them wrong, or biased. I could say you're biased towards the PSP. Still, we can't all like the same things, can we? Wouldn't life be so boring if everybody liked and disliked the exact same things?
and that would have been a good argument if sony was trying to release a direct competitor to the nintendo's handhelds. only they didn't. you need only to see that the systems are entirely different in the very philosophy of the design to realize that. the psp was released for a different market.
The problem with that argument is that it is by and large a big load of bullpats. Sony knew what they were getting into when they decided to enter the handheld market - Nintendo dominate it. Sony saw how much money Nintendo were making and wanted a slice, and thus the PSP was born. But rather than just make a games console, they made a portable entertainment unit. A disc-based portable entertainment unit. And that was where they made their mistake. If they had swallowed their pride and used... oh, I've said this before. Could it be that I'm repeating myself? Yes. Could it be because you are ignoring the bits of my argument that make sense to focus on what you believe is wrong? Yes. The fact of the matter is regardless of what Sony or Nintendo say, they are in direct competition. It's the nature of the handheld market, the way it has been since long before Sony entered the games industry as a major player.
i did not need a handheld until psp came along, because the endless gameboys nor the ds have given me what i needed from a system. psp did, and so i bought it. same for many other psp owners.
The PSP plays games. So does the GameBoy, the DS, and a million other more reasonably priced handhelds. The PSP plays movies, but only if you pay through the nose for them, again. The PSP is an MP3 player, but you have to buy a larger Memory Stick. I did the math and I worked it out to be cheaper to buy a Nintendo DS, a portable DVD player, and a 1GB MP3 player from Play.com than it is to buy a PSP, and you save money in the long run on games and movies.
The PSP has the "convenience" of doing all of these things on one smaller system, but I've used it as an MP3 player and it's far too bulky - thank you Sony for convincing me, finally, to buy an iPod. I've used it to watch movies on, or at least I have tried to. The screen is too small to stare at for longer than an hour. Sony set out with what I will admit are some great ideas. But they were not well-executed. Now that the company are focusing on the PS3, it does look as though the PSP has been put on the backburner (did you see just how little there was for the handheld at E3? The only thing Sony said was that it could be sued as a (very expensive) rear view mirror for Gran Turismo HD - even Sony know their handheld is crap).
for you, a ds might make a better console, but that's exactly what makes you a poor judge of psp games.
I won't insult you by calling you childish, but that was hardly a mature comment to make. I have been playing games since 1989, since I was three years old. I have played games on a variety of consoles and computer systems. I still own a large collection of games consoles from years gone by as well as the better selection of consoles of the current generation. I am of the ethos that a good game is a good game is a good game, irrelevant of what console it's being played on. That is what makes me a good judge of PSP games . There are so few worthwhile games for the system that I really, really do regret buying the thing. I have three games, only one of which I actually paid for (Lemmings and WOW were sent to me by their respective publishers to review for Dream17), and a few months after I bought it, the game I parted money with to buy was ported to the PS2 (and I will confess I only bought the game for the homebrew workaround that was available at the time - I have hardly played it as a game in its own merit).
If anyone here is a poor judge of anything within the world of videogames, it is you.
save anywhere feature would require a complete redesign of the missions system. it wouldn't be anything like gta. gta for psp was made for the kind of people that wanted gta3 on the portable system. as such, it was a success. again, it doesn't make much sense from the perspective of the classic handhelds, but it fits the psp design perfectly.
No it wouldn't, and the fact that you've fallen back on GTA for your argument just goes to show how much thought you haven't put into your arguments.
it was because of all the people who whined that they wanted it on ps2. every other thread on gtaforums was about that at the time. many of these people gave in and bought a psp just to play gta lcs before it was announced for ps2. and if you want further proof that it wasn't a flop, rockstar released a second gta for psp, the vice city stories. would they bother with a second game if the first failed miserably? no, they'd cut their losses and move on.
Why did these people want it on the PS2, I wonder? Is it because they had no intention of buying a PSP? And is GTA:VCS going to be ported to the PS2 as well? I think it is. LCS wasn't a flop, but the PSP version made far less money than Rockstar had anticipated, which is more likely to be what prompted the decision to port it to the PS2. I expect VCS to come out on the PS2 some time next year as well.
sales aren't the defining element here. yes, there is more market for the ds. but the people who buy a psp aren't the people who buy the ds, in the majority. that's the important element. the two systems are entirely different, and a person for whom a ds works well, should not judge the game on psp. that is the whole point here.
But they are so far as Sony is concerned. Sony sees things in black and white - selling and sold out. There is no inbetween, which is why they make only a handful of units for their consoles at launch and then do their Success Dance when the 12 units they've made have sold out. The two systems are not as different as you think - they are both handhelds, they are both reaching for the same market regardless of what propaganda either company choose to put out. And in this battle Sony are losing, the developers and publishers are starting to second-guess themselves. When EA says they are going to move focus away from PSP-exclusive development to focus on the DS you have to stand up and listen.
and you were complaining about me calling you a fanboy?
I still am, because unlike you I seem to be making some valid arguments, and what's more I'm backing them up with fact. I'm not saying "Nintendo are doing this and that while Sony suck". I am simply pointing out Sony's errors. A Fanboy acts like a company can do no wrong (which is your stance regarding the PSP so far, I might add) and I know that Nintendo have made mistakes in the past. I know they continue to make mistakes now (Nintendo of Europe, for example, is the most appallingly operated regional division of a games company I've ever encountered - at least in SCEE's case it wasn't them who made the decision to delay the launch but rather the Japan HQ). But for you to simply wash away the mistakes Sony has made is simply unforgivable and just shows that your opinions, whatever they may be, are flawed on a very fundamental level.
it's not about unified. it's about bringing the power of a decent console into an environment where it could not exist before. none of the other systems do that. psp gives you a platform on which you can run a decent deathmatch in a bar. other systems don't. that's the marketing niche, it might be narrow, but it is distinct, and entirely different from ds marketing niche.
Have you even played a DS before? I mean, really. You can do this with a DS as well. You can do this with a Game Boy Advance, for Glod's sake. There is nothing unique about that.
i am not talking about how it was developed. i am talking about the game itself. the whole point here is that you, as a person who prefers nintendo ds, like the wow. it was a game made based on classical handheld philosophy, and that makes sense. people who prefer a psp prefer different kind of games. they don't care about being able to play the game as soon as you pull the system out of your book bag. they care about games that can be played with friends for hours. these are people who want worms armageddon on their handheld. and these are the people who didn't like wow. the irony of the game turning out much better on psp is notable, but irrelevant.
Then I would say that these people are playing on the wrong console. For people who want a social device they really are going about it the wrong way. Go to any Gaming Event, pull out your DS and go into PictoChat and you will see conversations, games, the lot. Search for games of Mario Kart DS, Metroid Prime: Hunters, Tetris DS, and you'll find them. I pulled out my PSP at an event recently and there was no buzz whatsoever. The PSP is not a social handheld.
find me a single place up there where i say that psp is better system than ds? having trouble? ok. how about sony better than nintendo? no? would you like me to point out the places where you make fun of psp? trying to show that it ds is better? because i can find at least 3 such quotes just in the post i was replying to. after all that you think i am a fanboy? you seriously need to have your circuits checked.
Your problem is that you assume that the word "Fanboy" means someonw who slags off another system or company, and I have already put it forward in this post that it goes deeper than that. You are, so far as I am concerned, nothing more than a childish PSP Fanboy. You have failed utterly to aknowledge Sony's many, many mistakes. You have attempted to defend your purchase by describing its merits when I have already explained that half of those merits can also be attributed to the DS, while the other half are complete and utter bullpats. You're not very good at this arguing thing, are you?
We're getting nowhere with this argument. Let's just agree to disagree - you like your PSP, and I prefer my DS over my PSP. We're not going to get anywhere by arguing - I'm not going to suddenly say "The PSP is Civilization" and you're not going to throw your PSP out of the window, so let's little point continuing this debate. So far as I am concerned this little argument of ours is over - a stalemate, if that makes you feel better - and if you attempt to continue this discussion I will... well, I won't do anything. It's as simple as that. If you're one of those people who has to have the last word then so be it, but don't for one minute think that my lack of a response to the comment that will inevitably follow this one means that you have won this argument. Neither of us has. We're done. Pack it up and go home.

alex atkin
2 Jan 2007, 01:00
Im a bit offended at being called a PSP fanboy considering I dont play on my PSP very much or my DS (which I imported before the UK launch).
Also, nobody is saying the PSP is perfect. In fact I think its hugely flawed because its damn uncomfortable to use. However I stand by the point, you DONT know what PSP owners want.
However my point was also that developers dont seem to understand what PSP owners want. Which is the whole argument of why I wasnt impressed with WOW in the first place.
You yourself pointed out that PSP was and is intended to be PlayStation Portable but developers have treated it just like the DS not a fully-blown console. Again I stand by the point that people buy the PSP to play longer, more involved games than the DS. The battery life is irrelevant because I know plenty of people who DO use them on the mains at friends houses to play network games, mostly teenager. Perhaps you dont know any 16 year olds but I do and THEY are the ones owning the PSP and taking them around to each others houses instead of lugging their PS2s around and trying to find a spare TV. Im not talking purely my opinion, im talking about what I have been told by the very people doing it.
WOW isnt a bad game, it just isnt what people want for a PSP game from what I have seen. WOW will probably work better on Xbox Live Arcade because its good having those limitations for online gaming to stop the ropers from ruining the game for everyone. I was never able to play WA/WWP online due to the behaviour you mention, im not the best roper and the fun is in the aiming, which I think we agree on.
So no, im not a PSP fanboy. Mostly I dislike the PSP but I had expected so much more from WOW than it delivered. That said, the developers have really mistreated the PSP, as you have pointed out the DS has far better games despite its far more limited 3D abilities.

quakerworm
2 Jan 2007, 01:30
I won't insult you by calling you childish, but that was hardly a mature comment to make. I have been playing games since 1989, since I was three years old. I have played games on a variety of consoles and computer systems. I still own a large collection of games consoles from years gone by as well as the better selection of consoles of the current generation. I am of the ethos that a good game is a good game is a good game, irrelevant of what console it's being played on. That is what makes me a good judge of PSP games.
all of these points would have been relevant if you were the only person with such qualifications. i also played games in '89, only i was 4. f-15 strike eagle was very popular at the time. also, prince of persia was released that year. by '92 i could write a breakout clone on basic. see, i've been around games just as long, and played them on just as many different platforms. some you've never even heard of, because they were home-built. ever tried to load sim city off a cassette? the only difference is that you turned towards art and writing in games, and i turned toward technology and code. all in all, i am just as qualified to judge games in general as you are, even if my poor writing style does not allow me to write professional reviews. the difference will be in judging games for a particular platform. different platforms are for different people. you have been very clear on your preferences. wow is clearly a good game for you, and psp is a bad platform. people like you will not make up core consumers of psp games. you liking wow doesn't matter. on the other hand, people who do like psp find wow to be too short and oversimplified. they are the people who buy psp games. they are the ones who are right on this.
No it wouldn't, and the fact that you've fallen back on GTA for your argument just goes to show how much thought you haven't put into your arguments.
the argument was about gta. you brought up the 'save-anywhere' thing. i only responded to that. gta has nothing to do with my argument, really. it's just what i consider a good example of a good psp game. i think sale figures will agree with it. they might be poor compared to non-psp titles, but i would bet that they would be at the top for psp games. you could probably check me on that.
Have you even played a DS before?
yes, i did. warioware touched, and metroid prime hunters. the later i tried specifically because i didn't think fps with a stylus could work. i was wrong. it did a lot better than i expected. i'm still sticking to my mouse, but for a handheld it did well.
I mean, really. You can do this with a DS as well. You can do this with a Game Boy Advance, for Glod's sake. There is nothing unique about that.
the two games we play most commonly are burnout legends and gta:lcs. from what i have heard, burnout legends plays a lot worse on ds, and gta simply has no counterpart. ds couldn't handle it. in general, for a good deathmatch, you need a big arena, clear picture, and dynamic objects. that translates into memory, screen, and processing power. psp surpasses ds in all three of these. yes, it is true that most games fail to utilize that, but you only need a couple that do. unlike the world of platformers and puzzles, where diversity is king, in the world of deathmatches only the best few matter.
I am simply pointing out Sony's errors.
i don't even know why you keep dragging the argument this way. i never claimed that psp is a glorious platform. sony messed up the marketing, they made a huge mistake with umd format, there are very few good games, and the list goes on. that is all beside the point, however. i needed the system that can play movies and mp3s, browse the web, and run games. i am not a crazy audiophile, so the music i can fit on a memory card is sufficient. i also have no problem with ripping my movies off dvd and putting them onto memory card. why should i buy umd movies? i use it for internet browsing and listening mp3s far more than i play games, but when i do play games, i usually play for at least an hour at a time, because i have to plan it in advance anyways. psp might have been messed up in many ways, but it performs the functions that i wanted it to perform. ds can be better in every way, but unless it does all of the above, i really just don't need one. and sure, i could have bought a separate mp3 player, dvd player, and a pocketpc with internet, but i still wouldn't buy a ds.
Then I would say that these people are playing on the wrong console. For people who want a social device they really are going about it the wrong way. Go to any Gaming Event, pull out your DS and go into PictoChat and you will see conversations, games, the lot. Search for games of Mario Kart DS, Metroid Prime: Hunters, Tetris DS, and you'll find them. I pulled out my PSP at an event recently and there was no buzz whatsoever. The PSP is not a social handheld.
it's not about playing with random people. if i want to play with strangers, i will play on-line. if i want to meet new people, it's not going to be through games. somebody being good at a game, doesn't make them an interesting person whom i would enjoy a conversation with. it's about hanging out with friends and playing a game while having a verbal conversation. not some picture chat.
Save anywhere would have worked fine ... you can't save on missions, and when you're off missions, saving just saves your stats, not the status of the world. So when you load back, you start at your apartment, but your stats are retained.
that is a good point. i assumed the 'save anywhere' implies 'save any time'. if you don't let the player save during missions, it would work. the only thing this would mess up is the wanted levels. if you would make saving in the word retain your coordinates and wanted stars, on the other hand, the gameplay would be preserved entirely.

Squirminator2k
2 Jan 2007, 02:14
Quakerworm, please reread the following:
We're getting nowhere with this argument. Let's just agree to disagree - you like your PSP, and I prefer my DS over my PSP. We're not going to get anywhere by arguing - I'm not going to suddenly say "The PSP is Civilization" and you're not going to throw your PSP out of the window, so let's little point continuing this debate. So far as I am concerned this little argument of ours is over - a stalemate, if that makes you feel better - and if you attempt to continue this discussion I will... well, I won't do anything. It's as simple as that. If you're one of those people who has to have the last word then so be it, but don't for one minute think that my lack of a response to the comment that will inevitably follow this one means that you have won this argument. Neither of us has. We're done. Pack it up and go home.
Y'see that? That's called the moral high-ground. That's me saying "we're being idiots, arguing over something entirely trivial and based on opinion, so let's stop." Now your post, which I will forgo quoting on this occasion, has effectively said, "Nyerr nyerr nyerr, I have more things to say which are Wrong." It impresses me that you consider your argument valid enough to try to drag me down from the aforementioned higher ground.
Well no. As I have said, I am done with this argument. Feel free to continue, by all means. There's an old Internet saying which likens arguing on Forums to competing in the Special Olympics which, while horribly offensive, makes its point in its own crude way. I am done with this argument. Done. You've not said anything I cannot debunk or deflect or respond to but, like I said, I am done. We are done. Stop now.

quakerworm
2 Jan 2007, 03:06
s2k, you are still trying to make it sound like it ever was a psp vs ds argument. it wasn't at any point. you are trying to take the high ground on an argument that never existed. not that you can take a high ground in the same post in which you accuse someone of being a fanboy. if you wanted to stop argument by taking high ground, the thing you quoted above should have been at beginning of your previous post, with nothing following it. you say i'm not very good at arguing? you made practically no attempt to attack the thesis i set to defend. instead, you attacked the points i never made. and you don't even know how to properly terminate a debate. when you argue a point, you must give your opponent a right to rebut it. when you finish your arguments with "oh, but let us just agree to disagree," you are putting your opponent at a disadvantage. if you wish to terminate a debate, you must do so by giving up your own right of rebuttal. now, i could have pretended to be a better person and not reply, but that would also mean to pretend that what you did was alright. it is not. instead, i tried to ignore it, and let you end it on the high ground afterwards if you wish. your last post has changed my mind about letting you get away with it. have a nice day, and please, get yourself a book on logic.

Vercetti
2 Jan 2007, 04:52
Not at all Worms related but I thought someone would like to know:
GTA Advance lets you save anywhere but you will lose your current mission progress. When you load, you will be at the exact same coordinates. I often play GTA Advance while waiting for a train or while on a train. I tried playing my PSP at train stations and on the train but during the day, there is just too much light to see the screen, the loading times suck, 3D games usually need more concentration than I can offer with all the distractions around me, I don't like wearing headphones and GTA LCS would really suffer without sound.
Saints Row (GTA clone) on Xbox 360 lets you save anywhere. When you load you will be at the nearest safe house, wanted level retained and you will have to restart any mission you were on.

AndrewTaylor
3 Jan 2007, 12:19
you say i'm not very good at arguing? you made practically no attempt to attack the thesis i set to defend.
Exactly what thesis is that? Because from where I'm sat your thesis seems to be "buying a PSP is a worthwhile thing to do if you want to have a social gaming experience" and as far as I can tell it comes with the caveat "if all your friends have one and have the same games as you and you live in the one corner of the world where bars have publicly available sockets don't mind you using their electricity playing videogames and you happen to know all eight people in the country who think that playing videogames in bars is normal behaviour".
It's like saying the DS is the better console on the grounds that one leg of your table is exactly the height of a DS shorter than the others and the PSP can't prop it up properly. It's such a ludicrously specific scenario that it doesn't need attacking. Nine sales, that scenario will generate. Nine. in real terms, that's also called "zero".
S2K is talking about the general case: the average member of the videogame purchasing public. And surely the very fact that the public have all but stopped buying PSPs and PSP games indicates that the public can see no use for them? In which case, yes, there is a market for PSPs, but it's very small. And that's how this thread is going.
You: The PSP is good for some people.
Him: Yes, but not very many people.
You: Yes, but some.
Him: Yes, but very few.
You: But some.
Him: But very few.
And you're both right. But to be honest, I think he makes the more useful case, because you can sell at least one of anything to someone. It doesn't make it good, and it doesn't make it a success.

parsley
3 Jan 2007, 14:16
i don't know much about ds, but i can make a few notes on psp network, and some of these should be the same for two systems.
the api should be the same for ad-hoc and infrastructure. application needs only to create a socket, and the operating system takes care of using whichever physical layer is available to deliver the packets. wow on psp uses udp for ad-hoc, because it is easy enough to just send the same packet multiple times on the software level, and eliminate the need to await replies. with infrastructure, t17 would probably be better off with tcp, but that is a matter of network design, and not of api.
one part that is slightly different is the creation of physical connection. i do not think that psp would be trying to maintain an ad-hoc network at all times that the wifi switch is on, so either way, the application will need to make a request for a connection. for an ad-hoc, no additional user input is necessary. for infrastructure, the system must allow the user to select a connection from the list. api for this part might be slightly different. still, unless sony was intentionally trying to make it as difficult as possible for the developer, i do not see how this could be an issue.
finally, in case of the infrastructure, the game will require additional menus and code for connection to w-net name server and selection of available games. but again, this is not a question of api or hardware. once the host is chosen, the only difference between infrastructure and ad-hoc is the quality and delays of packet transmission.
You're mostly right; well, certainly the intention is right, but the devil is, as always, in the detail.
The Sony API has lots of differences between ad-hoc and infrastructure. Not terribly much at the socket level, but starting with the network connection utility for infrastructure and continuing from there. There are also considerable differences in the technical requirements laid down by Sony for ad hoc and infrastructure modes.
"eliminating the need to await replies..." - by this I assume you mean the ACKs necessary for guaranteed delivery? Fine, but you'll have to re-write all your low-level message handling.
"would probably be better off with tcp..." - absolutely, but remember on a four player game, you've just tripled the bandwidth required, plus all those TCP ACKs. This can break the game, by accidently tripping all those low-level retries and time-outs you've got for UDP, or break the console manufacturer's TCRs. It may not be an option.
Or do we change the point-to-point operation of ad-hoc to client-server in infrastructure? A whole new client and server system needs written, tested and debugged.
"unless sony was intentionally trying to make it as difficult as possible for the developer..." - you may think so, but I couln't possibly comment ;).
"finally, in case of the infrastructure..." - okay...
The w-net name server is unspecified. What extra code must be written to publish hosted games on the w-net name server? What extra code must be written to find hosted games on the w-net name server? What extra UI is needed to manage publish/find parameters for selective searches? What extra code and UI is necessary to handle the hundreds of extra errors that can now occur within the system? Who writes the w-net server? Ourselves? A big job and a massive amount of testing and debugging. Third party? Now we have whole swathes of extra code needed just to conform to the third party's technical requirements AND our previously small, thin abstraction layer must now encompass the entirety of the third-party source, with suitable stubs and dummies to cover the non-applicable areas in our in-house ad-hoc code. Or do we allow our abstraction to fall by the wayside and allow the game code to become 'infected' with ad-hoc/infrastructure differences?
"once the host is chosen" - AND connections have been established. This is not a trivial task in infrastructure mode as there are umpteen times more problems and errors in infrastructure mode than in ad-hoc. Firewalls? NAT traversal? DOS attacks? Encryption? What do we do if our NxN connection grid can only be partially created? What do we do when the NxN connection grid partially fails *after* successful creation? If p2p, how do we ensure that each game message is despatched to the game in the same order on every machine? (We cannot necessarily use the same mechanism as UDP as the extended lag of TCP may cause unacceptable delays.)
Now, this is not a comprehensive list, only a few thoughts kicked off by quakerworm's post. Although quakerworm writes nothing that isn't pretty much right, it's all the concomittant issues that haven't been addressed that are more important as they will take up far more time and energy than the simplistic, narrowly focused, solution first thought of. None of the individual tasks are intractably complicated, but there are a lot more of them than you realise and the interactions between them and the failure modes across them are an unmitigated nightmare.
"the only difference between infrastructure and ad-hoc..." - this is a great example of reducing a hugely complicated system to a tiny subsystem, thinking about the change solely in terms of that tiny subsystem, and then, without any justifiable basis whatsoever, extrapolating the 'result' back into the hugely complicated system. Even if the bald assertion were true, how does this affect the other systems in the game? In any reasonably complex system, the only truthful answer to this is, "I don't know." If you think you do, you're kidding yourself. Honestly, you are.
It's like stating that building the antenna on the top of a 500m tall skyscraper is not a massive engineering task, but failing to appreciate that first you must build the bloody skyscraper itself or that any changes to the design of the antenna could cause the whole caboodle to collapse.
And, even if all of this required zero time, we have, at minimum doubled the amount of testing required.

Vader
3 Jan 2007, 22:29
The DS version would have sucked even if it had wifi.
I can't comment on the PSP version, of course.

quakerworm
4 Jan 2007, 01:31
@parsley, i'm sorry if i made it sound like the whole process would be simple. yeah, i realize that to ensure connectivity via infrastructure you run into a whole new set of design problems. the only thing i was trying to point out is that out of these problems, very few are api or hardware related.
There are also considerable differences in the technical requirements laid down by Sony for ad hoc and infrastructure modes.
that really didn't even cross my mind. can you give an example? i'm just curious.
by this I assume you mean the ACKs necessary for guaranteed delivery? Fine, but you'll have to re-write all your low-level message handling.yeah, it's what i meant. and isn't that what you have done anyways? udp packets and application-level message delivery checks?
Or do we change the point-to-point operation of ad-hoc to client-server in infrastructure? A whole new client and server system needs written, tested and debugged.
that's pretty much the scenario i assumed. this way you don't need n-by-n connection grid, port forwarding becomes an issue only on the server end, and the bandwidth is n-multiplied for n-clients only on the server end. it may increase development time, but with n-times fewer places to break, this will improve stability, and cut the testing and debugging time.
in any case, i wasn't trying to imply that infrastructure wasn't done due to laziness, or anything of the sort. there just seems to be a very strong belief that api problems were the main cause, and i don't buy that. this leaves development time/cost issues, some of which your post explains.
You: The PSP is good for some people.
Him: Yes, but not very many people.
You: Yes, but some.
Him: Yes, but very few.
You: But some.
Him: But very few.
And you're both right. But to be honest, I think he makes the more useful case, because you can sell at least one of anything to someone. It doesn't make it good, and it doesn't make it a success.
exactly. which is why this wasn't even the point of the argument. the point of the argument was that because there are some people for whom psp is a good system, these few people are the ones who's opinion on which games are good for psp matter. if somebody who doesn't even buy psp games say that "wow is a good game for psp", it really means nothing. s2k kept dragging it into psp vs ds realm to prove that few people would prefer psp. the size of the group doesn't matter. only the existence.

Squirminator2k
4 Jan 2007, 01:32
Well I personally enjoyed the PSP version, and I'm not all that fussed about the lack of an Infrastructure Mode. That's something for a sequel, perhaps (where they can perhaps stick in a few more of the weapons from previous games to appease those Worms fans who didn't get the point of WOW). Hopefully there will be a sequel, and it'll be developed in house for the DS as well resulting in a good game.
It's a shame, really - Nintendo always seem to draw the short straw with regards to Worms titles.

Squirminator2k
4 Jan 2007, 01:50
exactly. which is why this wasn't even the point of the argument. the point of the argument was that because there are some people for whom psp is a good system, these few people are the ones who's opinion on which games are good for psp matter. if somebody who doesn't even buy psp games say that "wow is a good game for psp", it really means nothing. s2k kept dragging it into psp vs ds realm to prove that few people would prefer psp. the size of the group doesn't matter. only the existence.
Gah. WIll you shut up already? If you stop writing things I can stop having to respond to them, correcting your clear errors, and get back to bed.
Firstly, regardless of how you see the argument, I wasn't having a DS vs PSP debate. The point I was arguing is that you seem to think that as you bought the PSP because it's a PSP that you are somehow more qualified to say whether or not a game released for the system is good or not. I beg to differ - a good game is a good game is a good game, regardless of the system they're released on. For handhelds you have to make certain exceptions and tweaks, such as the aforementioned "Save anywhere" option for RPGs rather than hunting around for spraely located Save Points, but by and large it doesn't matter what system they're released on. Yes, I know that I've said the PSP version of WOW is better than the DS version, and I'll come to that ina minute.
Secondly, you seem to think that as I didn't buy the PSP for the same reason you and your circle of friends did that I am somehow less qualified to say what is and what isn't a good game for the system. I have said, and I continue to maintain this point, that this is pullpats. The reason I don't buy any games for the PSP - and do take note of this, perhaps ask someone to have it tattoo'd upon your arm or at the very least get it printed on a tee-shirt or something - is that there aren't any games worth buying for the PSP. Mostly they seem to be either updated or "new" versions of old games (Mortal Kombat Unchained, Ultimate Ghosts and Goblins, Lemmings, Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories, Prince of Persia: Revelations and Rival Swords, Namco Museum Battle Collection, et al.), half-hearted or cut down ports of "big" console games (WWE Smackdown Vs Raw 2007, PES7, Need for Speed: Carbon: Own the City, The Sims 2, Gran Turismo Mobile, Fifa 2007, Splinter Cell: Essentials, et al.), poorly-planned licensed games aimed at the childrens' market the console doesn't have (any number of Spongebob Squarepants games, Cars, Open Season, et al.), or games designed purely to cash in on successful DS titles of a similar vein (Mind Quiz, WTF). None of these titles appeal to me because - get this! - there's nothing special about them. None of the titles in the above list make me think, "Hmm, I think I'll buy this game." In fact nothing on the PSP has for the longest time. The only game that interests me that I don't have yet is that remake of Mega Man that came out a while ago and, yes, that's an updated or "new" version of an old game.
I have written that WOW is a good game. I have also written that WOW is a good game on the PSP because the DS version, which was coded almost entirely independently from the PSP version by a company separate from Team 17 who evidently had no idea what the fudge they were doing, is so ****-poor. It's like comparing the GameBoy Color version of Worms Armageddon to the PC version. Really. That bad. I don't think I am any less qualified to say that WOW is a good game than you are to say that The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess is a bad one (assuming you've played it, which to my knowledge you haven't, but then again I could be wrong). Again, it's all down to personal opinion, and my personal opinion is that it's a good game. Team 17 must think so (and, by extension, so much Microsoft) as it's been ported to the 360's Live Arcade. Maybe then you'll say it's a good game. A good PSP game, or Live Arcade game, it doesn't sodding matter.
A good game is a good game is a good game. Stop being so bloody stupid.
Edit: Regardless of how you see my debating technique, that I tried to stop this pointless argument is at least evidence that I see this argument was, is, and will always be, utterly pointless. That you keep trying to spark it up again - twice, I might add - shows exactly what sort of person you are.

Metal Alex
4 Jan 2007, 01:57
I would like to say something, to stop people complaining between PSP and DS:
Graphics: PSP
gameplay: DS
Why? you can allways use the buttons on the DS, for those games.OR the stylus for the others.
My choose? the DS. Just an opinion, but I wanted a different twist, not to mention that if I want to play playstation games... instead of a small one, I would get the big one... Anyways, I got the GC, knowing that it was not that good, in many ways... but having that smash bros melee was worth it (I mean, the nintendo games were quite more entertaining from my point of view).
remember it's a point of view :p

quakerworm
4 Jan 2007, 02:00
I don't think I am any less qualified to say that WOW is a good game than you are to say that The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess is a bad one.
can't argue with that. i am absolutely unqualified to do the later. never played the game. it would be hard to be less qualified than that.
i am not arguing about wow being good/bad as an absolute. that's a separate topic. if you think wow is a good game that is a good game that is a good game, as you said it, fine. but you can't argue that some games are better for some platforms than others. half-life2 would be a bloody bad game for gameboy color, and pong would not be the best choice for a 360 title. wow is a bad game for psp. it might have been a good game for ds, and as i said you would be a better judge of that. i'm not mentioning the fact that it got botched on ds. i'm saying as a theoretical title, well done wow might have been a great title on ds. but it's not for psp consumer, and it's therefore not for that platform. psp consumers would want a straight wa port, nothing more, nothing less. that would be a good worms title for psp.

Metal Alex
4 Jan 2007, 02:15
i am not arguing about wow being good/bad as an absolute. that's a separate topic.
oh! the irony!
read the name of the thread...

Squirminator2k
4 Jan 2007, 02:25
psp consumers would want a straight wa port, nothing more, nothing less. that would be a good worms title for psp.
Clearly not, otherwise WOW wouldn't have sold quite so well, would it? Tch.

quakerworm
4 Jan 2007, 03:40
first of all, numbers. i don't see wow on any top 10 lists, so if you want to say that it sold well, we need numbers. comparing them to total number of psp games sold, number of psp units sold, and the sales of most popular title would not hurt either. that's how you use empirical data to rebut a logic argument.
besides, it would be hypocritical of you to use a sales argument. your favorite worms game is wdc.

Spadge
4 Jan 2007, 04:06
first of all, numbers. i don't see wow on any top 10 lists, so if you want to say that it sold well, we need numbers. comparing them to total number of psp games sold, number of psp units sold, and the sales of most popular title would not hurt either. that's how you use empirical data to rebut a logic argument.
besides, it would be hypocritical of you to use a sales argument. your favorite worms game is wdc.
It did well, I can't quote actual figures, but in the UK it charted well for 5-6 months in the UK (stayed in the top 3-4 specifically for a number of months - and top 10 or so for about 6 months). Few PSP titles has sold incredibly well (GTA LCS is the no.1) but our publishers were very satisified with the performance of WOW.

quakerworm
4 Jan 2007, 09:27
there weren't a whole lot of good games coming out at the time, though. i know wow was the only one on my list. i tried to get some better idea for how wow stacks up against other games by using gamespot. i opened psp games and sorted them by popularity. the popularity is measured by the number of times the page for each of the games was viewed. it's not the best way to judge the game, but it should tell you something. wow came up around 120 out of 620. that isn't bad, but it doesn't exactly make it one of the top titles either. considering how many people still play armageddon, it could have done so much better.

Spadge
4 Jan 2007, 10:44
there weren't a whole lot of good games coming out at the time, though. i know wow was the only one on my list. i tried to get some better idea for how wow stacks up against other games by using gamespot. i opened psp games and sorted them by popularity. the popularity is measured by the number of times the page for each of the games was viewed. it's not the best way to judge the game, but it should tell you something. wow came up around 120 out of 620. that isn't bad, but it doesn't exactly make it one of the top titles either. considering how many people still play armageddon, it could have done so much better.
You're comparing platforms and content is moulded differently for both of these. There are (valid) reasons why some of the features weren't present in WOW and why it was shaped like it was. We got some stick for it not being online but at the time it was being developed (the last 4-5 months it's in various states of test) online support just wasn't viable. I'm sure we'll get chance to address that at some point.

AndrewTaylor
4 Jan 2007, 10:48
exactly. which is why this wasn't even the point of the argument. the point of the argument was that because there are some people for whom psp is a good system, these few people are the ones who's opinion on which games are good for psp matter.
Well, I see your point, but you could equally well argue that deliberately selecting a tiny group who love something and asking their opinions of it is biased and pointless. You aren't wrong to like it. It seems to me that it's ideal for you. But if that makes it a pointless waste of money for everyone else in the world then it is a bad console.
When I did the W3D focus test, it was a group of Worms fans that went to do it. It was not a group of Worms 3D fans. Worms 3D fans' opinions would have been pointless (also impossible to collect, but let's ignore that for now) because they'd have said they liked it; they're fans. The opinion of Worms fans was valuable because they're more-or-less the target audience for Worms 3D.
You are a PSP fan. S2K is a console fan in general. His opinion of consoles is more useful than that of a fan of the specific console. That in no way makes your opinion wrong; it just means it's not a terribly useful way to judge the PSP. And the size of the group does matter in real terms, because that's what gets multiplied by the unit cost to determine Sony's income.

Spadge
4 Jan 2007, 10:56
Actually the title is STILL in the chart-track top 10 (although its now being sold for a little less, as is what happens some 5-6 months post release). It was no.5 during Xmas week...

quakerworm
4 Jan 2007, 11:28
But if that makes it a pointless waste of money for everyone else in the world then it is a bad console.
You are a PSP fan. S2K is a console fan in general. His opinion of consoles is more useful than that of a fan of the specific console. That in no way makes your opinion wrong; it just means it's not a terribly useful way to judge the PSP. And the size of the group does matter in real terms, because that's what gets multiplied by the unit cost to determine Sony's income.
for the n-th time. i was not talking about quality of the console. good or bad console, here doesn't matter. i was only talking about the game for said console and that people who like that console are better suited to judge games for that console than people who almost never play it.

Squirminator2k
4 Jan 2007, 12:04
besides, it would be hypocritical of you to use a sales argument. your favorite worms game is wdc.
I used the sales argument to counter the basis of your initial argument - that WOW is not the game PSP owners want. That it's still in the Top Ten is clearly indicative that it is very much what PSP owners want, especially if it was at Number 4 during Christmas week. I suspect that had WormsDC been released for the PSP it would've sold just as well as WOW - if not, by your argument (it is, of course, closer to what you perceive as the Worms game PSP owners want, right?).
for the n-th time. i was not talking about quality of the console. good or bad console, here doesn't matter. i was only talking about the game for said console and that people who like that console are better suited to judge games for that console than people who almost never play it.
I liked the console when I bought it. This is clearly the case, otherwise I would've have bothered spending the money. I wouldn't have bothered convincing my then girlfriend to buy one when the store we went to didn't have the type of iPod she wanted. At the time, I bought it because I wanted it for the same reason you still like yours - I thought it would be a great social console with some good games due out for it. I was wrong, and now I have a bizarrely-shaped piece of plastic sitting on my computer desk. I expect that WOW and Lemmings will keep me amused while I'm on my flight out to LA but, being honest, I expect I'll be playing my DS more, if I'm not listening to my iPod, watching movies on my portable DVD player, or reading that "Bush-Haters A-Z" book someone got me for Christmas which I imagine will make my journey through US customs an interesting one.

quakerworm
4 Jan 2007, 12:33
I used the sales argument to counter the basis of your initial argument - that WOW is not the game PSP owners want. That it's still in the Top Ten is clearly indicative that it is very much what PSP owners want, especially if it was at Number 4 during Christmas week. I suspect that had WormsDC been released for the PSP it would've sold just as well as WOW - if not, by your argument (it is, of course, closer to what you perceive as the Worms game PSP owners want, right?).
fair enough, but i really don't see the same tendency in us. last time i saw wow on the shelves was when i bought it at release. i'm sure it still sells, but it wouldn't make top 10 around here. again, i must point to the numbers i got from gamespot.
and yes, i think a wdc clone with updated graphics would have done much better. in fact, i personally might even have preferred that to a wa port, but it might be just an old school fan speaking in me.
I liked the console when I bought it. [...] I was wrong, and now I have a bizarrely-shaped piece of plastic sitting on my computer desk.
but that's precisely the difference. you expected something that system didn't deliver. i expected something it did. clearly we wanted different things from the system. you already said that you have only purchased one game for the psp. the only system i have owned more games on than i do on psp was nes. it makes sense, as i mostly play pc games, and a portable system is something entirely different.
Or reading that "Bush-Haters A-Z" book someone got me for Christmas which I imagine will make my journey through US customs an interesting one.
i doubt it will give you any trouble. half of the us population dislikes bush. probably even more than that in la.

Squirminator2k
4 Jan 2007, 12:37
Hang on - I expected exactly the same thing you did. Oh well, each to their own I guess.

AndrewTaylor
4 Jan 2007, 12:44
Your friends are normal, that's all.
Well, normal in that way, anyway.
for the n-th time. i was not talking about quality of the console. good or bad console, here doesn't matter. i was only talking about the game for said console and that people who like that console are better suited to judge games for that console than people who almost never play it.
It depends what you mean, though, doesn't it?
You can judge a game by any one of a hundred criteria. Is it a good game? Is it a game well tuned to the type of platform it's on? Is it a game well tuned for the specific platform it's on? Is it a good game for experienced gamers? Is it a game that non-gamers could enjoy? Is it a game that sold well? Is it a game with any artistic worth to it? Is it a good game for its price? Is it a game that people will like? Is it a game that will still be fun in twenty years? And so on, ad centurium. And these criteria will almost never come up with the same answer, except for really, truly awful games.
You are judging it from the point of view "is it a good game for people who think the PSP is the greatest thing since someone thought, you know what would make bread better is if it was all cut up into thin slabs". S2K is judging it from the point of view "is it a good game for the average Joe Handheld-Console-Owner".
Without knowing exactly which point of view the average PSP owner holds, we can't really say which is the more useful measure of the game (I say "useful" because both are equally valid), but I'm not satisfied there are more than nine people who share your circumstances, and the sales figures do seem to be suggesting that W:OW is roughly what at least a large fraction of PSP owners want, so I for one will side with S2K on this one.

quakerworm
4 Jan 2007, 12:59
the question you should ask yourself is whether the joe handheld-console-owner owns a psp. if he doesn't, it's a moot point.
and you all keep talking about sales figures, yet i'm still to see any numbers. the fact itself that it makes it to the top ten charts in uk doesn't mean a whole lot. first of all, it's only uk. world-wide figures would be more convincing. second, i'm not even sure that there are 10 psp games that are truly good. out of games i own, i play two. does that say bad things about the game lineup? you bet. does it do anything to my point? no. i already stated that gaming on psp is a secondary thing for me, and these two games cover my need for portable gaming.

Spadge
4 Jan 2007, 13:44
the question you should ask yourself is whether the joe handheld-console-owner owns a psp. if he doesn't, it's a moot point.
and you all keep talking about sales figures, yet i'm still to see any numbers. the fact itself that it makes it to the top ten charts in uk doesn't mean a whole lot. first of all, it's only uk. world-wide figures would be more convincing. second, i'm not even sure that there are 10 psp games that are truly good. out of games i own, i play two. does that say bad things about the game lineup? you bet. does it do anything to my point? no. i already stated that gaming on psp is a secondary thing for me, and these two games cover my need for portable gaming.
I'm not 100% sure of the total sales, we get details from the publisher quarterly and it's for them to make the figures public or not. I certainly don't need to defend the sales figures as it's success will be made apparent at some point in the future. Titles charting consistantly for 9 months is a reasonable indication of prolonged ongoing sales, btw.

AndrewTaylor
4 Jan 2007, 13:48
the question you should ask yourself is whether the joe handheld-console-owner owns a psp. if he doesn't, it's a moot point.
Yes, I do believe I just said that.
But if you're the kind of person who is willing to buy a console and then play only two games ever then you're anything but the target demographic for either console or games. Consoles are usually sold at a loss to create a commodity market for the games, from which the console manufacturer takes a cut of the profits, and so selling you a PSP and two games is not in Sony's interests, and the idea of targeting games at the kinds of people who don't buy many games is clearly a non-starter.
Your opinions are, of course, all perfectly valid. But for most practical considerations they are irrelevant. Average Joe Handheld-Console-Owner has much deeper pockets, and there are more of him. Personally, I expect he owns the bulk of the PSPs that Sony ever got round to producing.
That's why W:OW was aimed at Joe and not at you.

Metal Alex
4 Jan 2007, 15:04
I have a theory of why the PSP version sold more...
1.- The DS one is made without almost no effort (I know T17 didn't have the fault)
2.- People having both systems could look at the screenshots, see the most pretty, and read that the touch screen is used only to scroll the map, along with all the bugs present.
Yes, the PSP one is better, but because the DS had nothing to compensate it. If both had the same effort on them... (not talking about results or graphics) then, the DS one could have had a chance. I mean, look at backgrounds like New Super Mario Bros. Way better. Sprites? NES looking? WTF...
I'm not a fanboy or that... Just stating what I think obvious.

parsley
16 Jan 2007, 11:15
@quakerworm
...very few are api or hardware related...
Hope you can read a touch of pseudo code, if not PM me.
Below, I've laid out vaguely the steps for running network games in adhoc and infrastructure mode.
As can be seen, the only bit in common is the "transfer game messages" statement; a very, very small part of what's required. Further more, hidden in the bowels of the parsley messaging API, there are a lot of ad-hoc/infra API discontinuities (like the software level ACKS we've discussed).
And we'll, maybe, come back and discuss adhoc-game mode, a third transport layer. Although you may initially think that adhoc-game mode could be slipped invisibly into the parsley messaging layer, it just doesn't work like that (I recommend you read Joel Spolsky's article on leaky abstractions).
proc AdHocMode()
initialise WiFi hardware (ad-hoc API)
for (each game)
connect to lobby IBSS (ad-hoc API)
while (connected to lobby IBSS)
create a finder socket (ad-hoc API)
publish or find a game (BSD api)
destroy the finder socket (ad-hoc API)
disconnect from lobby IBSS (ad-hoc API)
connect to game IBSS (ad-hoc API)
create session socket (ad-hoc API)
while (connected to game IBSS)
transfer game messages (parsley messaging API)
endwhile
destroy session socket (ad-hoc API)
disconnect from game IBSS (ad-hoc API)
endwhile
endfor
shutdown WiFi hardware (ad-hoc API)
endproc
proc InfraMode()
inilitialise WiFi hardware (infra API)
connect to access point (infra API)
while (connected to access point)
connect to matchmaking servers (unknown API)
while (connected to matchmaking servers)
for (each game)
publish or find a game on the servers (unknown API)
create infrastucture session connection sockets (infra API)
while (connected to session)
transfer game messages (parsley messaging API)
endwhile
destroy session sockets (infra API)
endfor
endwhile
endwhile
clean up WiFi hardware (infra API)
endproc
The infrastructure matchmaking stuff is (unknown API) because it could be parsley-built or third party.
Also, consider the different states available to the different modes.
Hopefully, this gives you, and others, a small insight into just how little of the code is concerned with in-game message passing, the subject that everyone seems to lock on to as the major source of effort. It ain't and it never will be, either.
that's pretty much the scenario i assumed. this way you don't need n-by-n connection grid, port forwarding becomes an issue only on the server end
Yes, apart from port forwarding; this is always an issue for any node on the network, regardless of topology. In user's terms why can Tom join Ian's games, but Ian can't join Tom's games?
In order for any node to be as 'connectible' as possible (a goal we wish to achieve for our user's benefit) it must deal with NAT, i.e., if A performs NAT traversal and B does not, there are cases where A can still not connect to B, but B would be able to connect to A if only B had NAT traversal.
...and cut the testing and debugging time...
Nope. Remember that you're writing of additional functionality. Leaving it out requires zero debugging time and one cannot save time on that!
this leaves development time/cost issues
Exactly as Spadge has posted many, many times (including a few times on this thread, I shouldn't wonder).
...psp vs ds realm...
*bodyswerve*:D

quakerworm
16 Jan 2007, 20:04
Hopefully, this gives you, and others, a small insight into just how little of the code is concerned with in-game message passing, the subject that everyone seems to lock on to as the major source of effort. It ain't and it never will be, either.
i see. yes, i did assume that message handling would be the biggest problem. thanks for clearing it up.
Yes, apart from port forwarding; this is always an issue for any node on the network, regardless of topology. In user's terms why can Tom join Ian's games, but Ian can't join Tom's games?
In order for any node to be as 'connectible' as possible (a goal we wish to achieve for our user's benefit) it must deal with NAT, i.e., if A performs NAT traversal and B does not, there are cases where A can still not connect to B, but B would be able to connect to A if only B had NAT traversal.
but none of these go away if you use n-by-n connection grid. if anything, it gets worse. to establish an n-by-n grid, at least n-1 nodes must accept tcp connections. you can reduce that requirement by making the grid operate with some connections missing, but the complexity of the code goes up insignificantly. or you can dedicate one of these nodes as a server, and then only that node needs to accept connections. with a simple name server, a host must accept connections, and that's how every worms game has worked so far. so it only makes sense to designate host as a game server, and let everyone else connect to it.
with a more complex name server, one that would announce people wishing to join games, a host is not required to accept messages, and any of the game participants can be chosen as a server. that would guarantee that a can connect to b's games if b could connect to a's games. an attempt to establish an n-by-n connection grid, in this design, can be used to determine the best node to use as a server. if that's what you meant, then i misunderstood you, but you still need the n-by-n grid only as a tool. the game itself would be handled via server-client relation rather than peer-to-peer relation.

parsley
17 Jan 2007, 12:10
but none of these go away if you use n-by-n connection grid. if anything, it gets worse. to establish an n-by-n grid, at least n-1 nodes must accept tcp connections...
Yup, as I wrote, it's regardless of topography. However, the thing is, if only one end (the connector, say) handles NAT traversal, then you've lost a major area of functionality, as I described above.
If one writes the socket class to miraculously connect and listen and do NAT traversal then you actually have less code and less complex code to deal with.
Think of this: if only the server does NAT traversal, then you will have two different methods of connecting in the code base: connect-NAT and listen-noNAT, say. If you do it symmetrically, you only have socket-NAT (attempts to connect and listens for a connection). This is less code overall and it is only trivially more complex than the connect-NAT entity.
The only extra in the symmetric socket model is when both sides manage to connect to each other, resulting in two active connections: A->B and B->A. This is solved trivially by sending a random number on the connection created by the local machine. When both numbers are available, both sides drop the connection that sent/recv'd the smaller or larger number.
Also, this wondrous socket class will also work seamlessly in P2P or client-server topographies.
It's one of those times where doing it properly is a hell of a lot of work, but not nearly as much work as doing it half-arsed and patching it... again... and again... and again...
with a more complex name server, one that would announce people wishing to join games, a host is not required to accept messages, and any of the game participants can be chosen as a server.
There never has been any reason why the host is the server; they are two distinct and unrelated entities. I've never really understood why so many games conflate these entities into one although I guess it's down to a confusion between the game host and the server host (category mistake).
that would guarantee that a can connect to b's games if b could connect to a's games.
Could you elaborate on why this guarantee works? (I cannot see how it does. That A has connected to B in the past does not even guarantee that A can connect to B now.)
an attempt to establish an n-by-n connection grid, in this design, can be used to determine the best node to use as a server. if that's what you meant, then i misunderstood you, but you still need the n-by-n grid only as a tool. the game itself would be handled via server-client relation rather than peer-to-peer relation.
It's not what I meant, but it's an interesting idea. Thinking about it, one could set up and NxN connection grid, test it and select the 'best' server, but I don't really consider it worthwhile.
Firtsly, due to the temporal nature of networks, any numerical test performed now, is mostly useless in the future. Networks tend to perform in bursts: a burst of better than average followed by a burst of worse than average. We cannot make the users wait for us to establish an average as that would take several minutes.
Secondly, I don't see any workable algorithm for selecting the server. In the best and worst cases, where one machine has the smallest/greatest ping times to all other machines, it's easy. I've not thought about it in depth, but in the other cases, I can't conceive an algorithm that really works. Any suggetions?
Thirdly, in low bandwidth situations, attempting to connect an NxN grid can cause the attempt to fail: any use of the network can cause a network to fail.
So, we don't have a worthwhile measure, we don't have a decent algorithm (yet?) and attempting it could cause it to fail. All in the hope of a possibly marginal improvement in ping times? Hmm.
This is my philosophy for writing network code:
1. Make it robust.
2. Make it secure.
3. Touch the network lightly.
And, if in doubt, check the Quake codebases.

quakerworm
17 Jan 2007, 17:26
i can see why you'd want to write the code so that it doesn't matter if a connects to be or b connects to a, but i still don't see the point of a grid. if you can establish connections a->b and b->c, then you can establish connection a->c, because you know that path from a to b and from b to c exists, so gateways will make path from a to c, and that the c accepts connections, so it's either connected directly, is in the dmz, or has proper port forwarding. in either of these cases, connection from a has the same chance of succeeding as connection from b, minus the net problems, but they'd interfere with a->b or a->c connection equally.
with that in mind, you still need to find just one node that is accessible to all other nodes. so if h is a host and a,b, and c are joining, it would make most sense to establish connections a<->h, b<->h, and c<->h, in the same way that you proposed to establish connection a<->b as a->b and b->a above. if a-c could connect to h, designate h as server, and continue. otherwise, h picks a connection it managed to establish, and designates that node as a server. so say, h->c is established. then, a and b create a->c and b->c connections, and c becomes the server node. the situations where, say, b->c is established, but a->c cannot be, while it is possible to establish b->a or a->b seems extremely improbable in any situation except for very bad pings. in that case, establishing b->a or a->b connection would not be of much help, because you'd still have lousy connection either between a and b or between b and c, which will most likely get dropped.
There never has been any reason why the host is the server; they are two distinct and unrelated entities. I've never really understood why so many games conflate these entities into one although I guess it's down to a confusion between the game host and the server host (category mistake).
my guess, for simplicity of the announcer server. if only the host may be the game server, announcer server must only handle host game requests from new hosts, and publish ip's for hosts of games that are currently available. this can be done with a simple php script on a http server. the only good reason, for a game like worms, to select a different host is if host cannot be connected to from outside. in that case, the announcer server must handle join requests for each hosted game, and then either the host needs to check them every now and then by opening and closing connections to the announcer (http), or connection between host and announcer is kept, and announcer sends messages of join requests to the host (non-http). in either case, the announcer becomes much more complex. of course, this makes a lot of sense only when you need a very simple announcer code with low traffic and database requirements, which usually is only an issue with independent games.
there are more reasons if you are talking about an fps game. first of all, the server is often dedicated, in which case it only makes sense for it to be the host. the host also may determine the game mod that is being used. if someone other than the host is the server, you create the whole hassle of comparing .dlls between server and host, if they don't match, sending a copy of the .dlls to the server, and making sure that the copy on the server is backed up before replacing. finally, there are a lot more games that happen between large number of people, so you don't need as many hosts/servers, and you can usually rely on the host knowing how to establish a proper server.
none of these, of course, have anything to do with a game like worms. there is no good reason for host to be the server, but it seems to me that it still makes sense to have a designated server for worms rather than try to build some peer-to-peer network.
Could you elaborate on why this guarantee works? (I cannot see how it does. That A has connected to B in the past does not even guarantee that A can connect to B now.)
well, guarantee might have been too strong of a word. lets say, there is a much better chance, seeing how just one of them not forwarding ports wouldn't be a problem anymore.
Secondly, I don't see any workable algorithm for selecting the server. In the best and worst cases, where one machine has the smallest/greatest ping times to all other machines, it's easy. I've not thought about it in depth, but in the other cases, I can't conceive an algorithm that really works. Any suggetions?
sure. sort nodes by their worst connection to one of the other nodes. select the node with the best such worst as a server.

parsley
18 Jan 2007, 11:15
i can see why you'd want to write the code so that it doesn't matter if a connects to be or b connects to a, but i still don't see the point of a grid.
Sorry if I've confused you. I never meant for there to be any connection between symmetric sockets and grids. Apologies.
if you can establish connections a->b and b->c, then you can establish connection a->c,
Nope, sorry. NATs can really screw things up. Imagine this: A is the server and behind NAT_A, B is the matchmaking service and is not behind any NAT, C is behind NAT_C and attempting to join A's session. (This is quite a common configuration, btw.) B->A is possible but A->B probably isn't. C->B is possible but B->C probably isn't. And the kicker? There is no way that B, as the matchmaker, can give C's address to A nor A's address to C and, even if it could, it's virtually impossible for A->C or C->A to work! (Well, there are ways, but a simple system will always fail and even the most advanced can't do it if NAT_A and NAT_C are remotely strict.)
Now add in, for a four player game, D, NAT_D, E and, just for fun, put E behind NAT_A. Think of the mess that can result! It's horrible.
And if you're feeling really saucy, slap in a few firewalls (badly configured or not) just to make things really grotesque.
for a game like worms
I wasn't thinking of Worms or any other game, just networks in general.
there are more reasons if you are talking about an fps game. first of all, the server is often dedicated, in which case it only makes sense for it to be the host.
A dedicated server cannot have a local game host otherwise it wouldn't be dedicated. The game has a host (the player that started it) and the server has a host (the machine hosting the server). Oft confused as the "host." So I'm a bit confused as to what you mean.
well, guarantee might have been too strong of a word. lets say, there is a much better chance, seeing how just one of them not forwarding ports wouldn't be a problem anymore.
I still think it gives very little indication. Even the most well-behaved NATs really do break networks very badly indeed.
sure. sort nodes by their worst connection to one of the other nodes. select the node with the best such worst as a server.
Assume 4 player game and a non-dedicated server.
Define, "worst." To be of any use, both the upstream and downstream bandwidths to each of the potential servers must be taken into account (higher bandwidth downstream is more desirable than upstream as the server is sending 4 sets of results and the clients are sending 1 set of 'input').
We now have 4 sets of 6 datum points which must be transformed into 4 single selection criteria. This transform has not been defined and doesn't appear to be trivial. How much weight to we apply to the downstream desirability would appear to be game-dependent... How much data is the server sending versus recieving? How important is input-lag versus display-lag?
I'm sure that there are other issues that I haven't thought of yet, but already the 'sure...' is full of arbitrarily defined weights and looking very shakey indeed.
In addition to this, you pointed out a problem that hadn't occurred to me (although you thought of it in a different context). If we select the best machine to host the server, how do we guarantee that the DLLs, etc., on the selected machine are the ones the game host requires? It would be awful A to be tagged as a cheater because we'd moved the server to B's machine and B's DLLs have been hacked.
*sigh*
Oh well, it seemed like a nice idea at the time.

quakerworm
18 Jan 2007, 20:22
Nope, sorry. NATs can really screw things up. Imagine this: A is the server and behind NAT_A, B is the matchmaking service and is not behind any NAT, C is behind NAT_C and attempting to join A's session. (This is quite a common configuration, btw.) B->A is possible but A->B probably isn't. C->B is possible but B->C probably isn't. And the kicker? There is no way that B, as the matchmaker, can give C's address to A nor A's address to C and, even if it could, it's virtually impossible for A->C or C->A to work! (Well, there are ways, but a simple system will always fail and even the most advanced can't do it if NAT_A and NAT_C are remotely strict.)
i do not see why if b->a is possible, then c->a would not. however badly configured each nat is, it has to make sure that any machine on the lan can connect to a server with a wan ip. otherwise, it's just broken. the only exception to this that i can think of is when the router only allows outgoing on certain ports, in which case it's probably intentionally designed to prevent people from playing on-line games, and then it really is the client's problem. even if you do resolve such cases, someone will find a way to break it intentionally. anyways, if b->a connection can be created, and assuming that b and a are not on the same lan, it means that a's router is properly configured to forward outside packets on the right ports to be forwarded to a's lan ip. in that case, it won't care if packets arrive from b or c, so c->a connection will work as well.
A dedicated server cannot have a local game host otherwise it wouldn't be dedicated. The game has a host (the player that started it) and the server has a host (the machine hosting the server). Oft confused as the "host." So I'm a bit confused as to what you mean.
i've seen games where the server is configured to run the game remotely, and none of the joining players act as hosts. i suppose that you can then say that there is no host at all, but that's not really the point. the main point is that the server is always pre-defined, and when the players join, they are pre-destined to be clients to that server. which means that none of the joining players will ever need to accept incoming connections, which means that the announcer server just needs to give them the ip of the game server, and all other data can be acquired from it. from there it is a short step to making host a game server when game is created without a dedicated machine.
i see your point on the difficulties in selecting the "best" server. just seemed to me that even finding "best" by some criteria would be better than nothing, as it would statistically improve chances of finding a good server over random selection.

Lyndon
19 Jan 2007, 05:57
when i first saw pictures of W:OW, it looked awesome. Then I saw the video and I was left feeling it was amateur at best. What really is impressive in the 2D games is how unbelievably smooth Team17 made the collision detection, and explosions etc. It feels flawless. Not to mention the animations have no hitches.
But maybe I shouldnt be comparing the two games? I disagree, W:OW looked buggier and slower then Worms 1 for DOS, a very uncapable machine, far less advance then the PSP.
That being said, I think the 3D worms in W:OW are cute and move funny (I like) and the water is gorgeous.

Vercetti
19 Jan 2007, 12:58
I disagree, W:OW looked buggier and slower then Worms 1 for DOS, a very uncapable machine, far less advance then the PSP.
Who do you disagree with?
I recently played WOW on PSP for the first time. I didn't notice any bugs but the physics are very different from Worms 1. I haven't played Worms 1 for years but from what I remember it had a lot more bugs, although some of them just made it more fun. WOW may be slightly slower but i'm not sure, it seems fast enough.
I noticed that your Worm can get stuck if you use a jetpack when you have some land above you but if you deactivate the jetpack you can move again. It's not really a bug but it made me lose my turn, so I'll remember not to do that again.

parsley
19 Jan 2007, 13:13
i do not see why if b->a is possible, then c->a would not.
This is dead quick, 'cause I've just had a metric shed-load of bugs back. Here's 3 configurations of 3 machines and various NATs and how they mess things up.
For more info, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STUN's a good starting point.
Eg. 0:
No NATs, everybody can connect to everybody else.
Eg. 1:
A->NAT_A->network
B->network
C->network
Connection:
A->B : okay
A->C : okay
B->C : okay
C->B : okay
B->A : fails because A's translated address from B has not been assigned on NAT_A. Until A sends a packet to B, NAT_A will not usually assign a port for the A to B link. (NB: sending C's version of A's address and port is useless because A, as seen from C, would have a different port number than A, as seen from B.)
C->A : fails
Eg 2:
A->NAT_A->network
B->NAT_B->network
C->network
A->B : okay
B->C : okay
C->A and C->B : fails
A->B and B->A : just not going to happen without some third party help, e.g., C can help out by acting as a STUN. (There are many other protocols and it's useful to use as many as possible because NAT behaviour is highly vendor specific.)

quakerworm
19 Jan 2007, 18:44
something like stun (thanks for the link) will only work for udp ports, though, right? if i understand it correctly, with tcp communication, a router will keep track of individual tcp connections, and only allow throw packets with appropriate sequence numbers. so without some serious ip spoofing and sequence prediction, you will not open a tcp connection between two clients behind nat even with third party help.
regardless, though, if b can open connection to a, whether tcp or udp and with 3rd party help or without, then c can open a connection to a using the same protocol and same level of 3rd party help. so if b->a connection exists, c->a can be created, unless c's network is isolated, in which case it wouldn't be able to reach b or even the announcer server, either. or am i missing something here? i just don't see how the source of packets can affect delivery, assumed that no previous connection exists.

parsley
22 Jan 2007, 11:04
STUN can help with TCP/IP, but it's not very successful.
serious ip spoofing and sequence prediction
Not half, old bean, although it's becoming more common to have uPNP NATs, which have a specific protocol for discovering and connecting.
regardless... then c can open a connection to a using the same protocol and same level of 3rd party help. so if b->a connection exists, c->a can be created
Sorry, there's a few problems with this. It may not be possible to connect; there are arrangements of NATs that simply won't work (double-strict). Even if it is possible, if the NATs are from different vendors, then different techniques may be required, thus requiring a different protocol and a different level of 3rd party help. Also, the direction in which the connection goes through the NAT is critical.
It really is an awful mess.
A good way of engineering network code is to actively try to work out how it can be broken and be as devious and pedantic as you can be in doing so. In this case, take the 3 machine layout and and as many NATs as it takes to break it (for example, there's nothing to prevent one of the machines being hidden behind several layers of NATs).

Killaz
26 Jan 2007, 13:03
its great that i didnt buy the game,this must be the worst worms game since worms blast.

Vader
26 Jan 2007, 15:48
its great that i didnt buy the game,this must be the worst worms game since worms blast.
At least there was a sense of achievement in Worms Blast. The lack of unlockable content made WOW more disappointing. :(

Pieboy337
26 Jan 2007, 23:13
At least there was a sense of achievement in Worms Blast. The lack of unlockable content made WOW more disappointing. :(
was there even anything that was unlockable in that game aside from the next missions

bonz
26 Jan 2007, 23:17
was there even anything that was unlockable in that game aside from the next missions
Yes.
3 characters: Fletcher, Rocky and Superfrog
Tournament game modes

Paul.Power
2 Feb 2007, 00:22
"if ... you happen to know all eight people in the country who think that playing videogames in bars is normal behaviour".You know, I'd probably be one of the ones in this country who thinks like that.
Well, okay, I'll concede it's not normal behaviour. I do it nontheless.

quakerworm
2 Feb 2007, 03:53
if i'm ever in uk, remind me to locate you and challenge you to a liberty city deathmatch at a local pub.

Paul.Power
2 Feb 2007, 16:34
if i'm ever in uk, remind me to locate you and challenge you to a liberty city deathmatch at a local pub.I'd be happier if it was a game I actually own.

Chip
3 Feb 2007, 19:21
Although I prefere the 2D Worms games, I never realy liked WOW.
The last 2D worms game I played before that was WA so when I came accross WOW which offered less features and less options then WA I was rarther dissapointed.
I'm just sticking to WA with the beta patches, that offers what I want in a game :)
And eventualy even more.

Hot Gravy
4 Feb 2007, 08:49
*Sigh*
you get this all the time, every time a new game comes out, some fanboy (not saying you're a fanboy, just saying you're not the only kind of person who does this) goes and says "OMiGoHS t1s is t3h suXX0rz!!!!!!!!!!1111!1122"
I mean, seriously guys! Show a little respect! Just YOU try and do better! The reason I complain about the sad excuse for a game "Herdy Gerdy" is because I probably could do better with game maker! (I don't mean to boast, it was SERIOUSLY a CRAP GAME!!!!! Never even touch that game in the shops!)
Edit: I haven't played it yet, but I might just have the same opinion as you.

Vader
6 Feb 2007, 09:01
Just YOU try and do better!
The point is that Team17 can do better and we expect them to. The disappointment stems from our favourite British independant games developer releasing what is arguably one of their worst titles to date. :(

Metal Alex
6 Feb 2007, 14:47
Edit: I haven't played it yet, but I might just have the same opinion as you.
The DS version was FULL of bugs, lack of lots of things, and maybe more things, as the people around here say. I didn't play. I SAW A VIDEO, which made me not buy it :p
also, the DS version wasn't even developed by T17...
Let's put it this way:
PSP version: returning to the basics, selecting the things from WA so it was enough to be able to fully enjoy a worms match.
DS version: returning to the basics, selecting the things from WA so it was enough to be able to PLAY (just play) a worms match. :p
Anyways, the fact of saying "OMG!! could YOU do better???" is a fanboy way to talk... since their JOB is to create those games. Not yours. Not the critics. Not mine. Want to believe everything they do is like god? fine, no problem, go build your own T17 church, but think before you say that. Meanwhile, I'll try to see if the game is good enough. If not, I'll say my opinion, so they can improve listening to the opinions.

AndrewTaylor
6 Feb 2007, 16:14
The philosophy behind WOW on DS and PSP was the same. The PSP version was well executed and the DS version wasn't.
Some people like this philosophy and others don't. I don't really see how we can find out which is the majority view, because the fact is that this forum is populated almost entirely with people who found it via. WormNet, and that means that whenever there's a poll here it's always very heavily slanted towards W:A and towards online play, even though sales figures for the various games don't support the idea that that is how the "average" wormer plays. WOW is a marked departure from W:A, so an anti-WOW thread like this one will get a lot more support here than it probably would at a non-Team17 or non-videogame related forum.
There's a case to be made that the fans' opinions are worth more, but in real terms that case is wrong until the fans start paying more.

vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.