psp owners what games you got and how do you rate your system [Archive] - Team17 Forum

PDA

View Full Version : psp owners what games you got and how do you rate your system

wave
16 Nov 2007, 23:30
Look at my sig to see my games, i also got lumines but it remains in its wrapper.

MtlAngelus
17 Nov 2007, 01:12
I voted EVERYTHING because I'm awesome. :cool:
But seriously, the PSP is evil, because all companies are 100% pure evil, and the psp is made by a company. :eek:

Plasma
17 Nov 2007, 01:14
I voted EVERYTHING because I'm awesome. :cool:
I was gonna do that. But voting the last option alone was considered a better idea for me.

farazparsa
17 Nov 2007, 02:51
GP2X + Faraz = <3

wave
19 Nov 2007, 10:13
I was gonna do that. But voting the last option alone was considered a better idea for me.
indeed far less immature. As well as other things.

Plasma
20 Nov 2007, 00:04
indeed far less immature. As well as other things.
I'm not quite as sure that "Mr. flibble is very cross, what are we going to do mr, flibble?" isn't immature...

wave
20 Nov 2007, 00:24
I'm not quite as sure that "Mr. flibble is very cross, what are we going to do mr, flibble?" isn't immature...
congratulations it was placed there precisely to be silly, so people could express their immaturity, instead of selecting every option.

Plasma
20 Nov 2007, 00:27
congratulations it was placed there precisely to be silly, so people could express their immaturity, instead of selecting every option.
Well, it didn't work very well. Twice. And also managed to cause a thread to go offtopic too.
I accept no blame for past or present incidents relating to this matter...

MonkeyforaHead
20 Nov 2007, 00:53
Having bought one of the regular models at the somewhat reduced price, I can say I don't feel ripped off, although I'm still not sure the purchase has been entirely merited. Using it as a UMD movie medium really is pretty much a joke, and of all the games I've got for it, Loco Roco and Disgaea have been the only ones I really feel were worth it.
In short: the PS2 and DS are both cheaper, and have far better libraries.

Shadowmoon
20 Nov 2007, 18:00
I have only got lemmings at the moment. I am getting some new games though. The PSP is better than the DS, but the DS has sold more consoles due to its price. I love the PSP.

MtlAngelus
20 Nov 2007, 20:01
I have only got lemmings at the moment. I am getting some new games though. The PSP is better than the DS, but the DS has sold more consoles due to its price. I love the PSP.
Uh... no.
The PSP is great, but it doesn't have that many great games.
The DS, on the other hand, is great and has a really wide library of great games. And it's cheaper.
So the PSP might have better specs, but the DS wins as it is a better choice for a handheld console because it has more great games to play on it.

Shadowmoon
20 Nov 2007, 20:05
Uh... no.
The PSP is great, but it doesn't have that many great games.
The DS, on the other hand, is great and has a really wide library of great games. And it's cheaper.
So the PSP might have better specs, but the DS wins as it is a better choice for a handheld console because it has more great games to play on it.
What do you mean Uh... no? the PSP is better, because it has more features and better graphics. But the DS is selling more. Why? because people who want a portable want it to be cheap, not over £100.00. The PSP is better, but the DS is selling more copys. The DS is more fun, but the PSP is better because of the graphics and features.

Cyclaws
20 Nov 2007, 20:06
You said
The PSP is better than the DS
quite plainly in your last post, heh.

MtlAngelus
20 Nov 2007, 20:34
What do you mean Uh... no? the PSP is better, because it has more features and better graphics. But the DS is selling more. Why? because people who want a portable want it to be cheap, not over £100.00. The PSP is better, but the DS is selling more copys. The DS is more fun, but the PSP is better because of the graphics and features.
Better is a shallow term actually, it depends on each person's point of view.
So if you want a powerfull handheld console, the PSP is better for you. But if you want a larger variety of games, the DS is better for you.
Overall tho, the majority of people prefer the DS because it is cheaper, has much more great games to play on it, and has unique features to it.
So, overall, the DS is better, as it's what the majority of people would agree in.

Shadowmoon
20 Nov 2007, 20:38
Better is a shallow term actually, it depends on each person's point of view.
So if you want a powerfull handheld console, the PSP is better for you. But if you want a larger variety of games, the DS is better for you.
Overall tho, the majority of people prefer the DS because it is cheaper, has much more great games to play on it, and has unique features to it.
So, overall, the DS is better, as it's what the majority of people would agree in.
The DS is more fun, but it is not better created, its not better looking, and its not got better graphics. If you want classic games like mario, get a DS. If your looking for a console with good graphics, get a PSP. Anyway, i think i am turning this thread into a PSP VS DS war, so i am not continuing this. The PSP is a great console, but the DS is more fun. Just a little suggestion, but how about somebody create a PSP VS DS thread? that would be extremely popular.

Cyclaws
20 Nov 2007, 21:15
It's been done, killed, revived and killed some more. Especially in the WOW:2 forum.

Melon
20 Nov 2007, 21:45
the PSP is better, because it has ... better graphics.
This is why my faith in the gaming industry has declined rapidly.

Shadowmoon
20 Nov 2007, 21:46
This is why my faith in the gaming industry has declined rapidly.
What do you mean?

Melon
20 Nov 2007, 21:52
Some people tend to believe nowadays that better graphics = better game.
This is not true in the slightest. It seems to me that so much time and money is being poured into making games look great that they're beginning to lose track on what the most important aspect of gaming is.
Fun.
Now don't get me wrong, good graphics are nice, but not at all necessary. As long as the graphics can sucessfully convey the right information to you, then they do what they're supposed to do.

Shadowmoon
20 Nov 2007, 22:17
Some people tend to believe nowadays that better graphics = better game.
This is not true in the slightest. It seems to me that so much time and money is being poured into making games look great that they're beginning to lose track on what the most important aspect of gaming is.
Fun.
Now don't get me wrong, good graphics are nice, but not at all necessary. As long as the graphics can sucessfully convey the right information to you, then they do what they're supposed to do.
actually they are necessary, as people do like games with good graphics. Most game sites review the game based on its graphics. If you look at Mario Galaxy, it includes everything thats needed for a good game.

wave
20 Nov 2007, 22:20
Some people tend to believe nowadays that better graphics = better game.
This is not true in the slightest. It seems to me that so much time and money is being poured into making games look great that they're beginning to lose track on what the most important aspect of gaming is.
Fun.
Now don't get me wrong, good graphics are nice, but not at all necessary. As long as the graphics can sucessfully convey the right information to you, then they do what they're supposed to do.
thats becoming the cliche point of view nowadays esp. held by nintendo fans, it has truth of course however having played games on the ps3 very recently i can safely say that if i want a realistic fully submersive rpg experience that truly engages you then great graphics are important. I guess it does depend on what type of game you want; a realistic game experience or a easy going crazy one which relies solely on the fun gameplay. Nb its possible to have both!

Plasma
21 Nov 2007, 00:02
actually they are necessary, as people do like games with good graphics. Most game sites review the game based on its graphics. If you look at Mario Galaxy, it includes everything thats needed for a good game.
On the other hand, if you look at Super Mario 64 and Legend of Zelda: Orcarina of Time, they're still regarded as among the very best games of all time! But they don't have brilliant graphics at all.
I guess it does depend on what type of game you want; a realistic game experience or a easy going crazy one which relies solely on the fun gameplay. Nb its possible to have both!
Not really. It's possible to have a mix of both, but doing so would limit both gaphics and gameplay than what they could be.
...also, how can something be 'easy going crazy'?

MonkeyforaHead
21 Nov 2007, 01:50
actually they are necessary, as people do like games with good graphics.
Yes, and thank you very much for helping to perpetuate that statistic. :p People see a game on the shelf and think "sweet, nice graphics", then they buy it and try it out only to discover it's a ****bomb of a game with a nice candy coating. Not to say all games with nice graphics are bad, or vice versa -- it basically lies in what level of graphics the game design requires to complete the experience. NetHack and Dwarf Fortress are proof positive that, with the right sort of concept and execution, you don't even need character models to carry the game.
If I ever get into a debate with someone in person who clings to "the PSP is better than the DS cuz it has better graphics" as the basis of their argument, I'm liable to injure something. I have a PSP. It has widescreen. Big hoopty whoop. I'd rather tap my screen to the beats of remixed pop music while male cheerleaders with physics-defying hairstyles do a dance to save the world from an alien invasion. You don't need widescreen for that.

farazparsa
21 Nov 2007, 03:41
PSP has Sony's non-existant support and a bunch of lame ports and unused potential. The GTA series that are available for it are royal crap and disgrace the actual console. They are rehashes of previous games in disguise.
DS is cheap, but has messed up titles (Cooking Mama. 'Nuff said.) with some creativity that is thwarted in the end by idiotic Nintendo tactics like releasing "add-ons," making you buy them, then drop support for them just like that and begin working on the next "add-on."

MonkeyforaHead
21 Nov 2007, 08:25
DS is cheap, but has messed up titles (Cooking Mama. 'Nuff said.) with some creativity that is thwarted in the end by idiotic Nintendo tactics like releasing "add-ons," making you buy them, then drop support for them just like that and begin working on the next "add-on."
Cooking Mama may be the fruitiest thing to grace a Nintendo console in recent memory, but if you can swallow your pride long enough to give it a try, it's reasonably fun.
Also, exactly what add-ons are they making you buy? The Gamecube had the ability to go online that was used for one or two games total, but that was built into the system. The e-Reader just plain flopped. There were the bongo controllers, yeah, but the only game to require them was Donkey Konga (if that? I don't remember if they let you use the regular controller). DDR Mario Mix actually came with the dance mat for something like $10 over the usual game price. Name me one DS add-on that you need to play a game. Hell, I can't even think of any DS add-ons that exist, save the rumble pak (that came with Metroid Pinball for free).
You might as well say Sony is forcing us to buy add-ons to play Guitar Hero. Or DDR. Or how about the EyeToy? How many games actually used that? And how many do you think will use the Eye of Judgement, or whatever that thing's called?
If you're thinking specifically of Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles, I'll submit to that much. That was an utter joke and deserves all the ridicule it got, but hey, if you happened to have four GBAs and four GBA-GC link cables lying around, I'm sure it could've been fun. :p

wave
21 Nov 2007, 10:40
On the other hand, if you look at Super Mario 64 and Legend of Zelda: Orcarina of Time, they're still regarded as among the very best games of all time! But they don't have brilliant graphics at all.
Not really. It's possible to have a mix of both, but doing so would limit both gaphics and gameplay than what they could be.
...also, how can something be 'easy going crazy'?
not really, of course its possible to have both.
nb i agree that zelda OOT is regarded as one of the best games ever made having played it, but at the time its graphics were pretty awesome.

FutureWorm
21 Nov 2007, 17:13
thats becoming the cliche point of view nowadays esp. held by nintendo fans, it has truth of course however having played games on the ps3 very recently i can safely say that if i want a realistic fully submersive rpg experience that truly engages you then great graphics are important. I guess it does depend on what type of game you want; a realistic game experience or a easy going crazy one which relies solely on the fun gameplay. Nb its possible to have both!
given how viciously you seem to be defending the PS3 on the grounds of graphics alone, i don't see why you don't just switch to the PC platform - there, you can have your cake and eat it too (great graphics + much better and deeper gameplay than console games)

*Splinter*
21 Nov 2007, 18:39
given how viciously you seem to be defending the PS3 on the grounds of graphics alone, i don't see why you don't just switch to the PC platform - there, you can have your cake and eat it too (great graphics + much better and deeper gameplay than console games)
Indeed, same games and pc costs twice as much as PS3, woo!

Pigbuster
21 Nov 2007, 19:14
same games!
Oh REALLY?
Show me Dwarf Fortress for the PS3 and I'll believe you. :p

wave
21 Nov 2007, 21:03
given how viciously you seem to be defending the PS3 on the grounds of graphics alone, i don't see why you don't just switch to the PC platform - there, you can have your cake and eat it too (great graphics + much better and deeper gameplay than console games)
i can't stand computer gaming on PC's, i can do worms but thats about it! You need a real beefed up pc with al the horrible add ons and gumf to make it into a playing machine:mad: plus i've turned to Mac's now.
Ps3 is a cheaper and better option in that it is truely dedicated and theres no microsoft software anywhere, heaven.:)
cake or death, hmmm cake please. lol.

Shadowmoon
21 Nov 2007, 21:06
PS3 has the greatest graphics in the world. Xbox 360 is second to the PS3, with the Wii been 3rd best console with the greatest graphics. Or is the
PS2s graphics better than the wiis?

robowurmz
21 Nov 2007, 21:47
Oh no. I can already feel the war starting...
No! Don't say it! Either of you! DON'T SAY THE WORDS "x is better than y because of suchandsuch!!!!"
ALIENWARE is better than ANY console.
Nuff said.

Shadowmoon
21 Nov 2007, 21:50
Oh no. I can already feel the war starting...
No! Don't say it! Either of you! DON'T SAY THE WORDS "x is better than y because of suchandsuch!!!!"
ALIENWARE is better than ANY console.
Nuff said.
There is no such console. Wii is the best console, thats the end of the war. See didn't last long did it?

farazparsa
22 Nov 2007, 00:45
ALIENWARE is better than ANY console.
Agreed. Thread over.

FutureWorm
22 Nov 2007, 03:31
Oh no. I can already feel the war starting...
No! Don't say it! Either of you! DON'T SAY THE WORDS "x is better than y because of suchandsuch!!!!"
ALIENWARE is better than ANY console.
Nuff said.
hahahaha oh my god

Pickleworm
22 Nov 2007, 03:37
Oh no. I can already feel the war starting...
No! Don't say it! Either of you! DON'T SAY THE WORDS "x is better than y because of suchandsuch!!!!"
ALIENWARE is better than ANY console.
Nuff said.
Please, please, let's just let this thread die with whatever dignity it still has
Actually it already has negative dignity but let's not let it die with negative infinity dignity

MtlAngelus
22 Nov 2007, 06:57
All consoles fail misserably against the SNES. That is it. Dignity regained, thread over. :cool:

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