PDA

View Full Version : NO PSO2 for Wii/Xbox 360/PS3 WHY???



Saligun
Feb 20, 2011, 08:03 PM
Why should PC be the only ones to get PSO2,We console gamers got left out of Blue Burst(Ep4) and now we get the other boot by being left out of the next PSO game.I'm sure Wii/Xbox360/PS3 could all be cableable of running a game like this.If the game is designed for each system.It just seems kinda like sega thinks console gamers are not worth wasting their time on to make a new PSO game for...

Ffuzzy-Logik
Feb 20, 2011, 08:13 PM
Because PC is the only system that makes sense for a game designed to receive frequent and multiple content updates.

Because PC makes more sense for a game requiring a lot of online interaction.

Because PC only means Sega won't have to deal with Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo and can have the server and connection all to themselves, making things much easier to manage.

Because PC gaming is superior to console gaming in about every way possible.

Because there are already at least twenty other topics about this.

Kierto
Feb 20, 2011, 08:16 PM
We should all praise jesus that PSO2 (is hopefully) being developed with the PC as its 'base'.

Who knows, maybe this one might actually be optimized for the system and won't be eternally restricted by its original platform (developer stupidity is another factor altogether, however).


However, SoJ were previously looking to hire (http://sega.jp/corp/saiyo/intermediate/) Planners and Programmers for PSO2 that have experience with the Xbox 360 and PS3 in addition to the humble PC. Now why would they want to go and do something crazy like that...?

Mike
Feb 21, 2011, 01:28 AM
However, SoJ were previously looking to hire (http://sega.jp/corp/saiyo/intermediate/) Planners and Programmers for PSO2 that have experience with the Xbox 360 and PS3 in addition to the humble PC. Now why would they want to go and do something crazy like that...?
Because having experience is better than not having experience?

landman
Feb 21, 2011, 02:58 AM
Because PC only means Sega won't have to deal with Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo and can have the server and connection all to themselves, making things much easier to manage.
Example: shooting down the server when they want instead of waiting for Microsoft's approval. Yayyy!!

Ffuzzy-Logik
Feb 21, 2011, 06:13 AM
Sorry, I'd rather have no server than one that's chronically deficient in content.

Ezodagrom
Feb 21, 2011, 07:57 AM
Why should PC be the only ones to get PSO2,We console gamers got left out of Blue Burst(Ep4) and now we get the other boot by being left out of the next PSO game.I'm sure Wii/Xbox360/PS3 could all be cableable of running a game like this.If the game is designed for each system.It just seems kinda like sega thinks console gamers are not worth wasting their time on to make a new PSO game for...
So far only a PC version was announced, but that doesn't mean they won't announce a PS3 or a XBox360 version later on. Releasing it for the Wii would be stupid though, since the Wii has a really limited storage, it wouldn't allow for real updates.

JesMaz
Feb 21, 2011, 09:57 AM
Many of the very best video games are pc only. I think this is good news

Kaziel
Feb 21, 2011, 10:09 AM
A single platform release means less programming, problems, and staff. If anything, PC is the best venture. Anywhere else, and I doubt they'd make near enough projected money.

Besides. The Xbox 360 isn't popular in Japan. I would take a wild guess that a large population of Japan is one of the *primary* target markets. Also, have to admit that releasing anything for the Wii is holding back it's potential in being sweet-ass eye candy. As for the PS3, I don't know.

tl;dr - Be glad you get what you get.

r00tabaga
Feb 21, 2011, 12:47 PM
PC games are not any better than console games anymore. I liked Blue Burst and all but I just like console games better than PC. Not everybody has a $5,000 super machine. If they want to sell tons of copies, adding PS3 would be the way to go IMO. Xbox is great, but in Japan it's invisible. Too many ways for hackers to exploit with a PC, so I HOPE AND PRAY that Sony gets in on this too! Much higher user base w/consoles.

OK, PC-nerds flame away...

r00tabaga
Feb 21, 2011, 12:49 PM
Many of the very best video games are pc only. I think this is good news

For the record, I hate WoW & turn based strategy games. That would be what comes to mind when I think of PC games.

Kaziel
Feb 21, 2011, 12:53 PM
PC games are not any better than console games anymore. I liked Blue Burst and all but I just like console games better than PC. Not everybody has a $5,000 super machine. If they want to sell tons of copies, adding PS3 would be the way to go IMO. Xbox is great, but in Japan it's invisible. Too many ways for hackers to exploit with a PC, so I HOPE AND PRAY that Sony gets in on this too! Much higher user base w/consoles.

OK, PC-nerds flame away...

The other problem is that Xbox refuses to cross-platform X360 with PC or PS3. Meaning, once again, you have segregated servers. If Micro$oft would clean up their act and integrate cross-platform, I wouldn't personally have a problem with it. If you want to play on the Xbox with me, go for it. I don't care.

I don't mind PS3 support, but the way it is, PC is the current best-bet. You don't have to spend $5,000 on anything. If you are, you're doing it wrong. I spent $800 on my rig, and so far nothing has challenged my machine, including Crysis or any recent game. I highly *doubt* PSO2 will be the next big graphics-overhauler.

---------------- Edit -----------------

On another note, I have never played a single turn-based strat game or WoW on the PC... I think you have the wrong demographic. O_o

Ezodagrom
Feb 21, 2011, 01:58 PM
PC games are not any better than console games anymore. I liked Blue Burst and all but I just like console games better than PC. Not everybody has a $5,000 super machine. If they want to sell tons of copies, adding PS3 would be the way to go IMO. Xbox is great, but in Japan it's invisible. Too many ways for hackers to exploit with a PC, so I HOPE AND PRAY that Sony gets in on this too! Much higher user base w/consoles.

OK, PC-nerds flame away...
Most PC games are technically better than consoles games (or at least the PC games that are properly ported or are made for the PC first), even a current mid-end PC has a much stronger hardware than consoles.

$5000 for a PC? I checked newegg, to see how much it costs a high-end PC capable of running most recent games with high quality settings at 1080p, the final price was around $1600, and that includes a 24" 1080p screen, Windows 7 Home Premium, 5.1 speakers, a gamer mouse and keyboard, and a Blu-Ray burner.
$1000 should be more than enough for a good PC.

You're right about consoles having a higher user base and the XBox 360 being pretty much invisible on Japan though.

andrewrew
Feb 21, 2011, 02:09 PM
I'd love to see this on the xbox, but thats because im the kind of player that almost always played offline splitscreen. It'd be even better with online splitscreen though!

Kaziel
Feb 21, 2011, 02:24 PM
I'd love to see this on the xbox, but thats because im the kind of player that almost always played offline splitscreen. It'd be even better with online splitscreen though!

That would be interesting, but improbable. Wishful thinking is dangerous! O_o

Dongra
Feb 21, 2011, 03:33 PM
PC games are not any better than console games anymore. I liked Blue Burst and all but I just like console games better than PC. Not everybody has a $5,000 super machine. If they want to sell tons of copies, adding PS3 would be the way to go IMO. Xbox is great, but in Japan it's invisible. Too many ways for hackers to exploit with a PC, so I HOPE AND PRAY that Sony gets in on this too! Much higher user base w/consoles.

OK, PC-nerds flame away...
There are so many things wrong here. That is a gross exaggeration on the cost of decent and high end gaming computers. As for hacking, it can still be done on consoles. It really comes down to how much the company cares about cheaters and how dedicated they are to stopping it. Obviously, Sega has a pretty bad history with cheaters. I don't see any problem with a PS3 version, but an xbox 360 version would probably lead to separation of community again. On the plus side, Microsoft has done a better job protecting its games than Sega ever did.

For the record, I hate WoW & turn based strategy games. That would be what comes to mind when I think of PC games.
Now that's incredibly single minded. First thing that comes to mind for me would be shooters which the PC does really well. Of course, there are plenty of great PC games that are not generic shooters and strategy games.

landman
Feb 21, 2011, 03:44 PM
Sorry, I'd rather have no server than one that's chronically deficient in content.
In the other hand, I prefer to have the content late than never.

relentless
Feb 22, 2011, 09:25 AM
In the other hand, I prefer to have the content late than never.

This is true but let's not hope it will come down to either of those 2 possibilities to begin with. Even if people can accept either of them, the community would be bound to be filled with negativity. You can rant more about something that is there than something that is not there. For instance when we were promised an update for PSU within the next 2 weeks and it came after several months etc.

Corey Blue
Feb 22, 2011, 01:14 PM
This is true but let's not hope it will come down to either of those 2 possibilities to begin with. Even if people can accept either of them, the community would be bound to be filled with negativity. You can rant more about something that is there than something that is not there. For instance when we were promised an update for PSU within the next 2 weeks and it came after several months etc.

I hope people are smart enough to leave this time around,and hopefully SEGA will wake the hell up because their doing it wrong.People should be tired of being neglected,it's time for a revolution!! (jk jk):-P

NoiseHERO
Feb 22, 2011, 01:31 PM
I hope there isn't a "this time" and sega just NOT screws us over to begin with...

Corey Blue
Feb 22, 2011, 05:20 PM
I'm going to make it known on the forums to,why spend money and get treated like shit,when there's to many other games that we could spend our time and money on.(If there going to half ass us,I think they shouldn't even release it over here seriously.)Import it and play it,but I wont be doing that,shouldn't have to.(I'll have a huge grin on my face when everybody moves to the JP servers and the US is dead.)(Hopefully none of this happens.)

Omega-z
Feb 22, 2011, 05:44 PM
Ezodagrom, why would you say that the Wii has limited Space? because you don't need the Hard space like the other two? Wii can handle what the other two can. but that's a moot point since it's for the PC and not consoles as far as we know.

Sinue_v2
Feb 22, 2011, 06:25 PM
For better or worse, PSO2 will appear on either the PS3, X360, or both. Mark my words. I don't know in what form or with what functionality/compatibility, but it will happen. They are not going to leave that large of a market go untapped, especially with Phantasy Star being so highly associated as a game console franchise with a console-biased established market. Not to mention already heavy competition from a PC market saturated with online RPGs, the potential profits even after the costs of finding alternative solutions to console limitations may well outweigh the risks of a PC only launch.

Yeah, Blue Burst was PC only... and it also largely flopped outside of Japan, not to mention that is was merely an expansion/refinement of what was essentially already a five year old game. PSO2 is a highly anticipated sequel with a established cult of popularity and a good name in the console market. Hell the whole reason we're getting PSO2 instead of some new entry in the franchise is to try to backpedal the last few years of the PSU disaster. Hell, they re-released a PSO v.1 "sim" in PSU ala-MAG.... one of the few event runs that was made a permanent addition.

It'll happen.

Except on the Wii. Sorry Omega, but Wii cannot handle what the other two can.

Alis-Landeel
Feb 22, 2011, 07:22 PM
I hope not to see PSO2 on 360 or PS3.

Because PC is a superior starting point from which to develop a new game that should last at least 5... or 6 years. Sega was wrong in developing PSU on a PS2 basis in 2006, at the end of its vital cycle, just like it would fail if PSO2 was developed on the basis of PS360 in 2011.
I want it on PC in 2011... and then a more powerful version 2 on the next generation consoles in 2013 or so.

1000$ for a PC upgrade? For sure! I'm saving my money for that.

Corey Blue
Feb 22, 2011, 07:35 PM
As long as it's cross servers,global,and SEGA wont treat us like neglected children,then sure sure.(One side has to be shut down there is no co existence,so hopefully they don't fuck this up.)

LarienTiwele
Feb 22, 2011, 08:45 PM
Honestly, They CAN do a multi-platform via PC-360-PS3, or at least, PC-PS3. FFXI did it all 3, well 4 if counting PS3 and PS2 and was successful at it, while having a cross platform server. FFXIV was supposed to follow suit, with PC and PS3, but got hit by fans and their ravenous rebuttal of "We dun want FFXI clone" becoming "Not FFXI enough!"

However, this must also be kept in mind: FFXI also had started PC only as I recall (Established community, fixed early release bugs, same as the idea for FFXIV), then moved to PS2, then 360 (Though by time US players got it, it was released PC and PS2 from the start).

Corey Blue
Feb 22, 2011, 09:49 PM
Honestly, They CAN do a multi-platform via PC-360-PS3, or at least, PC-PS3. FFXI did it all 3, well 4 if counting PS3 and PS2 and was successful at it, while having a cross platform server. FFXIV was supposed to follow suit, with PC and PS3, but got hit by fans and their ravenous rebuttal of "We dun want FFXI clone" becoming "Not FFXI enough!"

However, this must also be kept in mind: FFXI also had started PC only as I recall (Established community, fixed early release bugs, same as the idea for FFXIV), then moved to PS2, then 360 (Though by time US players got it, it was released PC and PS2 from the start).

I don't know whats stopping them,are they not smart enough,do they lack the resources,what the hell is the problem,seriously.

Sinue_v2
Feb 22, 2011, 09:59 PM
However, this must also be kept in mind: FFXI also had started PC only as I recall (Established community, fixed early release bugs, same as the idea for FFXIV), then moved to PS2, then 360 (Though by time US players got it, it was released PC and PS2 from the start).

No, it was originally planned as a PS2/PC title to be released simultaneously across both platforms. Though that didn't happen in either territory. I think the PS2 version launched before the PC version in Japan, while the PC version launched first in the US. IIRC, for the US PS2 release, there were some kind of issues regarding the HDD and System Browser on Sony's end which supposedly kept it backed up. I'm convinced that Sony purposely drug their feet and refused to get their shit together for the NA territories so as to delay FFXI to their advantage. SoE had several months before released EverQuest Online Adventures, which a lot of PS2 gamers picked up as a "holdover" MMO until FFXI came out... and they wanted to milk a few more months out of their subscribers and sell it's first expansion pack (EQoA: Frontiers) which was coming out about the same time FFXI was previously slated to launch.

Kaziel
Feb 22, 2011, 10:47 PM
stuff

That's interesting. I should read up more about that. I thought Xbox barred people from cross-platforming to force users to subscribe to Live. I don't mind releases for consoles later, but it better be out for PC, since it's my optimal platform.

I just think the idea of segregation isn't too bright. Best to spend a little extra to develop a large, cross-platform network of servers than a bunch of isolated servers.

OT: But knowing SEGA, who knows.

AlexCraig
Feb 22, 2011, 10:55 PM
but it better be out for PC, since it's my optimal platform.



It has already been announced it will be for PC.

Kaziel
Feb 22, 2011, 11:00 PM
It has already been announced it will be for PC.

Was more a rhetorical statement. I guess I worded it weird.

If an MMO is coming out, it should be released for PC if anything. If it's released for another platform, that would personally rub me the wrong way.

Checkmate
Feb 23, 2011, 01:10 AM
If only the original Xbox never flourished or existed.... we'd have a Next Gen Dreamcast console; SEGA would be filtering all their projects thru it and would establish a mental link to project euphoric beams of PSO2 goodness directly into your brains as it's answer to the Wii-mote and PS3's Move.

And on the 8th Day, Chuck Norris looked down on the Earth and saw that it was good.

NoiseHERO
Feb 23, 2011, 01:20 AM
If only the original Xbox never flourished or existed.... we'd have a Next Gen Dreamcast console; SEGA would be filtering all their projects thru it and would establish a mental link to project euphoric beams of PSO2 goodness directly into your brains as it's answer to the Wii-mote and PS3's Move.

And on the 8th Day, Chuck Norris looked down on the Earth and saw that it was good.

*Nods In Robotic Silence*

Ffuzzy-Logik
Feb 23, 2011, 02:18 AM
Even in an alternate universe where SEGA still made consoles, it would still make more sense for the game to be on the PC.

NoiseHERO
Feb 23, 2011, 02:30 AM
Even in an alternate universe where SEGA still made consoles, it would still make more sense for the game to be on the PC.

Make sense? Yeah I guess...but then a lot of sega things in general would probably still be different.

The Sonic series would be as desperate, We'd probably still have jet set radio... PSU couldof been more flexible... No mario bashing sonics face in with minimal effort in smash bros... PSO fans couldof had their proper ports(maybe.) Sega would probably suck 30% less. PSO2 probably would be on console anyway...because sega is sega... I'd have another system other than Wii. Dreamcast would've lived long enough to have more than just 12 games worth playing.

Kent
Feb 23, 2011, 03:43 AM
If only the original Xbox never flourished or existed.... we'd have a Next Gen Dreamcast console; SEGA would be filtering all their projects thru it and would establish a mental link to project euphoric beams of PSO2 goodness directly into your brains as it's answer to the Wii-mote and PS3's Move.

And on the 8th Day, Chuck Norris looked down on the Earth and saw that it was good.
I think you have your information wrong. You should be wishing the PS2 never flourished or existed, because then we'd actually have a current-gen Sega console, because Sony would have never pushed Sega out of the market and caused the Dreamcast to fail as hard as it did (and Sega wouldn't have had to drop out of the console market, as a result).

Fun fact: Sega's chairman, at the time, was actually pushing for mass-partnership between Sega and Microsoft (http://kotaku.com/#!5447897/how-xbox-could-have-helped-the-dreamcast-survive) (to the point where Microsoft was considering buying Sega entirely) during the Dreamcast's demise, where Sega actually wanted the Xbox to be fully-compatible with playing Dreamcast games, even without Sega being owned by Microsoft.

It's not actually inaccurate to say that the Xbox series of consoles are the spiritual successors to Sega's legacy - especially since Sega actually wanted them to be direct successors.

NoiseHERO
Feb 23, 2011, 03:50 AM
I think you have your information wrong. You should be wishing the PS2 never flourished or existed, because then we'd actually have a current-gen Sega console, because Sony would have never pushed Sega out of the market and caused the Dreamcast to fail as hard as it did (and Sega wouldn't have had to drop out of the console market, as a result).

Fun fact: Sega's chairman, at the time, was actually pushing for mass-partnership between Sega and Microsoft (http://kotaku.com/#!5447897/how-xbox-could-have-helped-the-dreamcast-survive) (to the point where Microsoft was considering buying Sega entirely) during the Dreamcast's demise, where Sega actually wanted the Xbox to be fully-compatible with playing Dreamcast games, even without Sega being owned by Microsoft.

It's not actually inaccurate to say that the Xbox series of consoles are the spiritual successors to Sega's legacy - especially since Sega actually wanted them to be direct successors.

It always did feel like xbox had a little sega in it's blood...yanno... GOOD sega... (plus it had shenmue + Jet set Radio.)

But yeah "NO YOU'RE WRONG" was always thrown in my face of the idea.

Sinue_v2
Feb 23, 2011, 03:33 PM
But yeah "NO YOU'RE WRONG" was always thrown in my face of the idea.

Then you should perhaps think of re-examining the idea. Kent is absolutely right in his refutation, and I also feel that the Xbox line of consoles are the spiritual successors to Sega's endeavors, though with considerably more business acumen. That's why I would have loved to see Microsoft buy out Sega when the subject was floated, because I think they would have nurtured the talent and innovation that Sega was known for, while providing the good business sense and financing that Sega proper had never been able to reliably muster. Rather, most people would have preferred a Nintendo/Sega pairing, for nothing more than nostalgia over the old-days of consoles and a false sense of "quality assurance" that Nintendo represented - but has since evaporated with the advent of the Wii and it's horrid library of casual crapware.

For the first few years of the Xbox's life, it was a bit of an industry joke, and it was the Halo franchise alone which arguably carried Microsoft into round two and established for them a beachhead in the market to be exploited with the 360. I don't think the original Xbox had much of an influence on Sega's decision to leave the market. While there was a bit of hype and some impressive hardware tech demos, the original Xbox hadn't even launched until after Sega had made the announcement to discontinue the Dreamcast. Meanwhile Microsoft was plagued by a poor reputation for software (coming off of Windows ME and the compatibility issues between service packs for 2000) and abhorrent business tactics (namely, anti-trust suits for integrating IE into the OS and killing the market for other browsers such as Netscape). Many people assumed Bill Gates wanted to do to the videogame market what Microsoft had done to the PC market.

This is, in part, why their talking heads repeated stated that projections for the Xbox line of consoles were never intended to be a success in the first generation, but only to establish the brand going into a future next-gen.

Akaimizu
Feb 23, 2011, 03:54 PM
I also would support that as well. I also lived through that phase and monitored the same activity. It's almost no small surprise considering the Dreamcast even had use of the Windows Library for use in helping to port certain games to it.

Both companies, saw fit on the importance of online gaming on consoles. The other two were doing everything to resist it. That's why they only begrudgingly follow suit only after it becomes something they just can't ignore.

Of course, people will get angry at the idea of Microsoft entering the market and bringing some corporate-level business model to console gaming. The bigger misconception is that Sony created that in console gaming, first. At least in the 32-bit world. Nintendo was the first to do it, but got their hands slapped and they played ball afterwards. This allowed Sega to really gain major ground and become popular in the Genesis days.

But back to the 32-bit world. It was that resurgence of corporate approach to console gaming that helped push down the two top contenders when the Playstation arrived. A new guy came in throwing money around, got tons of exclusives, and the world wasn't watching them because Sega and Nintendo have been playing fair for years. Who was watching? Also the same tactics which allowed them to push SEGA off the console map starting with the Saturn. Ever notice how it's the SEGA Saturn/Dreamcast stuff that got pushed out the game-retailers door faster than any previous console (post lifetime), which sold their games in bargain bins long after the later Sega stuff left the shelves? I remember my friends asking me what I think of Playstation, back when it was to come out, and how will it deal with Nintendo and Sega. Knowing what I knew of what happened to the personal computer business, I simply said, "Sony's got money. Lots of money."

If the PC business can be bought with big money, I knew the console business could too.

The PS2 put a hurt on people buying into Dreamcast before the console even launched. Only with a movie of a non-playable Metal Gear scene for something that wouldn't even grace the PS2 until 2 years after its launch? Hurt in another way by EA because a first party Football game is a "no no" to them, and they didn't want competition from first parties for their Football franchise. The truth finally comes out that they don't want ANY competition for their football titles. Still, it was Sony's general "counter-advertising" that did it. Pure vaporware and word tactics fueled by the overall success of PS1. Microsoft wasn't even in a mention outside their Windows libraries usable in the Dreamcast. So it's no surprise why Sony's department of sales thought they would immediately come out on top of this console generation based on their vapor hype alone. It worked before.

Microsoft didn't bring corporate tactics to consoles. They simply gave Sony some actual capitalistic competition. Some competition they couldn't embezzle against, or buy out their ability to compete. A friend of mine, on this site, even mentioned he was looking at Xbox when it was announced. It was that very reason I took him seriously.

Jinketsu
Feb 25, 2011, 08:02 AM
If the UI is done right and it caters towards controller users, then the game can be ported to consoles relatively easily and efficiently so that everyone can play on the same level. As for the online portion... I would say PS3 should be the first choice. I love my 360 and buy games for it almost 10x as much as my PS3, but the PS3 has free online gaming, and Sega won't have to go through all those hoops like they did with PSU on 360 to get their game online. Also, they could allow cross-platform servers, since apparently Microsoft doesn't want that at all.

Akaimizu
Feb 25, 2011, 08:51 AM
If Sega uses a pay model and does their own server thing, then it would be free on 360 as well. The bigger issue would be cross-platform servers if they use Live. They'd probably have to do like Square did and provide a front-client to handle such connections off of Live so that the inter-connected services aren't compromised. (Notice how FFXI doesn't even have in-game voice chat. However, people form parties using the Live layered chat system, which works cross game, to do VC on it.)

PS3 has none of that, nor any amount of *layers* in their network connections (outside of a simple text message/user signon-off alert) So everything runs as it's own independent entity, not sharing anything between them, nor services. It's kind of like a very very limited PC system. Mainly because they don't have the setup for any network services to run simultaneously. Just one at a time. (The exception being signon-off alerts, text messaging) So network integrity is saved by not having any interconnected hooks in the first place.

Still, Both PS3 and 360 will have little amount of pay to play games on their system. They both want to avoid those kind of games cutting into their gamesales per system quota. Since they got to make money with game sales, they currently enjoy people using all their gaming money buying new games, not funding old ones.

str898mustang
Feb 25, 2011, 06:27 PM
Consoles hold a game back

Arkios
Feb 25, 2011, 08:23 PM
Consoles hold a game back

Quoted for truth.

RemiusTA
Feb 26, 2011, 12:58 AM
The choice is crippiling to people like me who absolutely lothe sitting a fucking chair staring their monitor with a keyboard while NOT being able to play in their bed or on the floor or something.

However, for the game it really only maximizes the potential of the title. Personally, i would enjoy it if the game was just PS3/PC exclusive. (Fuck 360. Not because I hate it, but because apparently, they hate it, and are dead-set on not giving a damn about it.)

PC-Only pretty much cripples my dream of enjoying another Splitscreen-multiplayer PS title. Oh well. And honestly, it ruins my chance of obtaining the title by about 50% as well, because i HATE playing MMOs on my mother fucking computer.

But whatever.

NoiseHERO
Feb 26, 2011, 01:35 AM
I dunno...you don't HAVE to play at a typically uncomfortable PC desk...and I doubt PSO2 will force you to play with a keyboard.. Or I hope not. It only cost me like 10 bucks for a PS2/PS3 controller usb adapter.

and I always end up saying this but; Plugging you pc into a giant widescreen tv is soooooooooooooo cool. : O

Dongra
Feb 26, 2011, 01:38 AM
I play games on a laptop so I am pretty much set as far as comfort goes. My only issue will be if this game does not support controllers. I had enough difficulty playing PSOBB with my keyboard, I certainly can't see me playing well in PSO2. If it is keyboard only then I'll probably adapt to it like I did for PSU, but I still don't like my keyboard for this particular series.

The Last Baron
Feb 26, 2011, 02:50 AM
Solutions to comfort

-Wireless keyboard/mouse
-USB controller
-Projector (INFINITE SCREEN SIZE)
-Sell consoles; upgrade your hamster-powered machine
-Butt pillows

unicorn
Feb 26, 2011, 03:14 AM
Consoles hold a game back

But help games do better in sales.

I think the only reason why PSU was held back so much because of the PS2, which was a dying console at the time of its release.

PSO2 would clearly have a HUGE advantage being on PC and PS3 (not so much 360).

Ezodagrom
Feb 26, 2011, 05:09 AM
I play games on a laptop so I am pretty much set as far as comfort goes. My only issue will be if this game does not support controllers. I had enough difficulty playing PSOBB with my keyboard, I certainly can't see me playing well in PSO2. If it is keyboard only then I'll probably adapt to it like I did for PSU, but I still don't like my keyboard for this particular series.
Well, both psobb and psu supported controllers, most likely pso2 will support as well.

Mr Champloo
Feb 28, 2011, 04:29 AM
I hope it stay's PC only.

Nir
Feb 28, 2011, 06:16 AM
Well, both psobb and psu supported controllers, most likely pso2 will support as well.


Windows PSO *V2*
PSOBB
PSU

not one PSO Game have not Controller Support

Ffuzzy-Logik
Feb 28, 2011, 06:42 AM
Besides, it's not like Joy2Key and friends don't exist.

NoiseHERO
Feb 28, 2011, 08:41 AM
Besides, it's not like Joy2Key and friends don't exist.

Usually those things are blocked out by hackshields as crappy as half of em are...

But yeah, they'd be wanting people to quit not having controller support. Especially if console fans are already getting the run around for a pc.

Zarode
Feb 28, 2011, 08:52 AM
Been lucky with Xpadder, since that one has not been blocked out. Thank god, it'd make my ten bucks for it seem a little wasted.

Anon_Fire
Feb 28, 2011, 09:40 AM
Consoles hold a game back

The PS2 held PSU back

Akaimizu
Feb 28, 2011, 02:58 PM
^ Spoken with truth. But if only because of both hardware limitations *and* the lack of PSU forcing the use of a Hard-drive for the PS2. If they game even forced Hard drive use on the PS2, like the rest, they would've been able to make steady updates and such at least on the FFXI level.

jayster
Feb 28, 2011, 03:38 PM
If I heard this years back when I played PSU on my xbox 360 it'd be a shot to my heart but now that I have a gaming PC and do most my gaming on the PC, I'm estatic! I just hope PSO2 doesn't go down the same road that PSU PC did.

PALRAPPYS
Mar 1, 2011, 12:12 AM
I'm still hoping for PSO2 to reach consoles. I enjoyed playing PSU on 360 and would gladly do so again... the PS2 was a last generation console depriving PSU's life. The same should hopefully not occur with PSO2 if released on current generation consoles, as they can be much more easily updated at will.

And Jayster... is that you? Man, it feels like it's been ages since I've been on PSOWorld.

Kent
Mar 1, 2011, 06:26 AM
The PS2 held PSU back
Well, it's important to note that the reason the PS2 held PSU back, was because the system was already "last-generation" by the time the game came out. That, and Sony apparently just really didn't like the notion of continuing to produce the PS2 hard drives for very long after Final Fantasy XI came out.

If said hard drive was more of a standard accessory for the system (and could be used with the slim PS2s), then the game could've been designed with actual content updates in mind... Instead of paradoxically charging monthly fees and only unlocking on-disc content over time.

But nobody's going to argue that the fact that it was released on the PS2 is one of the main reasons for PSU's many design flaws, even on a mangerial level. Had the game not been targeted for that platform, things could've been designed much better - it's just the specifics of the PS2 that modern consoles don't have, that are the problem.

If the game were designed around modern consoles in the first place, then it's far less-likely that we wouldn't have had this issue. Given that the game is not an MMO in the first place, if it were designed around Xbox 360 and PS3 hardware, it could've easily had an update plan that played out similar to that of Borderlands - players have access to all of the on-disc content from the get-go, and expansions are released periodically that expand on that content, adding new areas, items, increasing the level cap, etc.

One way it could've played out (and one way that's still very possible for PSO2 to play out), is that we buy the base game, but then a few months down the road, an "Episode II" expansion may drop, that adds several more areas with new items and whatnot, followed by an Episode III, IV, etc.. I'd much rather see this happen over a series of monthly fees, because you know for sure that you're actually paying for new content for the game. If designed and patched properly, we can also easily get around the issue of things like visible equipment and clothing being seen by players that haven't purchased expansions to the game's content.

NoiseHERO
Mar 1, 2011, 07:26 AM
Well, it's important to note that the reason the PS2 held PSU back, was because the system was already "last-generation" by the time the game came out. That, and Sony apparently just really didn't like the notion of continuing to produce the PS2 hard drives for very long after Final Fantasy XI came out.

If said hard drive was more of a standard accessory for the system (and could be used with the slim PS2s), then the game could've been designed with actual content updates in mind... Instead of paradoxically charging monthly fees and only unlocking on-disc content over time.

But nobody's going to argue that the fact that it was released on the PS2 is one of the main reasons for PSU's many design flaws, even on a mangerial level. Had the game not been targeted for that platform, things could've been designed much better - it's just the specifics of the PS2 that modern consoles don't have, that are the problem.

If the game were designed around modern consoles in the first place, then it's far less-likely that we wouldn't have had this issue. Given that the game is not an MMO in the first place, if it were designed around Xbox 360 and PS3 hardware, it could've easily had an update plan that played out similar to that of Borderlands - players have access to all of the on-disc content from the get-go, and expansions are released periodically that expand on that content, adding new areas, items, increasing the level cap, etc.

One way it could've played out (and one way that's still very possible for PSO2 to play out), is that we buy the base game, but then a few months down the road, an "Episode II" expansion may drop, that adds several more areas with new items and whatnot, followed by an Episode III, IV, etc.. I'd much rather see this happen over a series of monthly fees, because you know for sure that you're actually paying for new content for the game. If designed and patched properly, we can also easily get around the issue of things like visible equipment and clothing being seen by players that haven't purchased expansions to the game's content.

I think the reason they went with PS2 is because Japan was still making and selling a bunch of last minute RPG games on the PS2, probably because PS3 was expensive back then, then the fact that xbox wasn't popular in japan in general, and was lucky to get PSU in the first place...

As for content and episodes most likely we can get more than just one expansion this time... They may as well just call them episodes instead of getting unnecessarily fancy with titles like PSU did...making it feel like a card game booster pack series...

Jinketsu
Mar 1, 2011, 08:12 AM
Lots of video games have sequels without numbers...

jayster
Mar 1, 2011, 02:21 PM
I'm still hoping for PSO2 to reach consoles. I enjoyed playing PSU on 360 and would gladly do so again... the PS2 was a last generation console depriving PSU's life. The same should hopefully not occur with PSO2 if released on current generation consoles, as they can be much more easily updated at will.

And Jayster... is that you? Man, it feels like it's been ages since I've been on PSOWorld.

Yup, I stopped playing PSU a year or 2 ago. I'll be back for PSO2 though, i'm excited for a new Phantasy star game.

However, I'll probably be getting it for my PC even if it does launch for xbox 360.

MOHFL
Mar 2, 2011, 05:50 PM
PS3 would be the best choice imo
least hacks, easy to add content and update
The hackers were always a big problem on PC

DC universe seemed successful as a PC/PS3 game, and the last figures i saw showed that more players were on the PS3 version

R0otabaga: your comment is very logical. If they want sales and support they will need a PS3 port of the game
I'm not buying a new pc or xbox360 just to play PSO2 despite the original being my fav game of all time
PS3 seems like the only logical choice given all the facts. Wii wouldn't be able to support this game at all imo (not to mention the wii hacking community), and a Blu-ray disc holds more than a usual one. Putting it on PC or 360 is asking for trouble from hacks and mods.

Dongra
Mar 2, 2011, 06:23 PM
I'm not buying a new pc or xbox360 just to play PSO2 despite the original being my fav game of all time.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you about PS3 being the best choice for a console port, but your post doesn't really explain why you think PS3 would be the better choice other than you already have one. Some people may already have an xbox 360, think of PSU players, and may not want to shell out to buy a PS3 or to upgrade their PC. The PS3 isn't completely hack proof either. The only way cheaters will be stopped is if Sega actually takes it seriously this time.

Kent
Mar 2, 2011, 07:02 PM
PS3 would be the best choice imo
least hacks, easy to add content and update
The hackers were always a big problem on PC

DC universe seemed successful as a PC/PS3 game, and the last figures i saw showed that more players were on the PS3 version

R0otabaga: your comment is very logical. If they want sales and support they will need a PS3 port of the game
I'm not buying a new pc or xbox360 just to play PSO2 despite the original being my fav game of all time
PS3 seems like the only logical choice given all the facts. Wii wouldn't be able to support this game at all imo (not to mention the wii hacking community), and a Blu-ray disc holds more than a usual one. Putting it on PC or 360 is asking for trouble from hacks and mods.
The "facts" actually run contrary to your argument at it being least-vulnerable to hacks. Considering that recent hacking of the PS3 hardware has essentially opened the floodgates to people running any code they want, any time they want on the PS3 (and cannot be fixed without invalidating all currently-existing PS3 software - think about that for a minute), this actually makes the PS3 pretty much the most vulnerable console to hacking.

The Wii, however, certainly isn't anywhere near being in-line with what the specifications for the PC version would lead us to believe the game's graphical quality will entail. Considering Nintendo's online service and the fact that the Wii has barely more capacity for updates than the PS2 does at this point, really only casts more doubt on the possibility of the game ever seeing a Wii release.

It's pretty obvious to say that in the case of the game getting a console version, it will be on the Xbox 360 and/or PlayStation 3. However, you'd have to be completely off your rocker (and/or part of the Sony Defense Force) to even come close to insinuating that the PS3 is anything except the least-secure console on the market. That, or you'd have to have a complete lack of understanding of what the recent transgressions of hackers having their way with the console actually means.

Ezodagrom
Mar 2, 2011, 10:37 PM
The "facts" actually run contrary to your argument at it being least-vulnerable to hacks. Considering that recent hacking of the PS3 hardware has essentially opened the floodgates to people running any code they want, any time they want on the PS3 (and cannot be fixed without invalidating all currently-existing PS3 software - think about that for a minute), this actually makes the PS3 pretty much the most vulnerable console to hacking.

The Wii, however, certainly isn't anywhere near being in-line with what the specifications for the PC version would lead us to believe the game's graphical quality will entail. Considering Nintendo's online service and the fact that the Wii has barely more capacity for updates than the PS2 does at this point, really only casts more doubt on the possibility of the game ever seeing a Wii release.

It's pretty obvious to say that in the case of the game getting a console version, it will be on the Xbox 360 and/or PlayStation 3. However, you'd have to be completely off your rocker (and/or part of the Sony Defense Force) to even come close to insinuating that the PS3 is anything except the least-secure console on the market. That, or you'd have to have a complete lack of understanding of what the recent transgressions of hackers having their way with the console actually means.
Cheaters/hackers aside, if there was going to be only 1 console version, a PS3 version would be more likely and would be better than an XBox360 version.

It would be more likely because of the main target audience for the online Phantasy Star series, which is Japan. The PS3 is much more popular than the XBox360 there.

It would be better because of cross-platforming limitations, there's more advantages in cross-platforming between PC and PS3 than PC and 360. Cross-platforming between PC and 360 would force the use of the awful Games For Windows Live service on the PC version. Also, GFWL (like XBox Live) is limited to 35 countries.

cApNhOwDy
Mar 4, 2011, 03:45 AM
WRY NO WII/PS3/360??

PC ONRY

Signed,

-The Internet.

Jinketsu
Mar 5, 2011, 10:30 PM
Cheaters/hackers aside, if there was going to be only 1 console version, a PS3 version would be more likely and would be better than an XBox360 version.

It would be more likely because of the main target audience for the online Phantasy Star series, which is Japan. The PS3 is much more popular than the XBox360 there.

It would be better because of cross-platforming limitations, there's more advantages in cross-platforming between PC and PS3 than PC and 360. Cross-platforming between PC and 360 would force the use of the awful Games For Windows Live service on the PC version. Also, GFWL (like XBox Live) is limited to 35 countries.

I don't agree that it would be good marketing to limit the game just because PS3 is more popular in a single region.

I agree with the cross-platform limitations from 360 to... anything else ever, but putting it on 360 does not limit a PC release to GFWL. That's a developer decision, and most PC games going through GFWL have their own dedicated servers seperate from the 360.

LarienTiwele
Mar 5, 2011, 11:19 PM
I own all 3 consoles and a PC, and can say if it does get a console release it should be for PS3 over 360. Why? The reason is simple there. The PS3 has better specs for newer generation games overall, in an example, it was the only console that would be able to hold FFXIV, and from my experiences online, also lacks many issues you see in 360 PSU, like the lag from everyone using spells/skills at once, etc.

Sinue_v2
Mar 6, 2011, 12:02 AM
The PS3 has better specs for newer generation games overall, in an example, it was the only console that would be able to hold FFXIV

FFXIV is not that graphically sophisticated, and would not pose a significant barrier to running on the 360. Further, the 360 has a much more closely related architecture to the PC, which will make porting quite a bit easier. At most, the only real difference you'd see in graphical quality between the 360 and PS3 versions you would probably only notice is texture quality dropping due to having to compress them for a smaller storage medium.

FFXIV's failure to manifest on the 360 has nothing to do with it's system specs. In fact, at one point in time, it was being developed for the 360, and the reason why it was dropped was because SquareEnix and Microsoft couldn't come to an agreement over how the online portion of the game would be handled, and how it would interact with Xbox Live. Source (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/260762/news/final-fantasy-xiv-360-development-stopped/). If PSO2 doesn't show up on the 360, it will almost certainly be because of the same issue.


and from my experiences online, also lacks many issues you see in 360 PSU, like the lag from everyone using spells/skills at once, etc

The reason why the 360 version of PSU slows down so much is due to sloppy coding and poor optimization. This was evident on the PC version as well, and folks like me who have PCs which should have been able to run the game flawlessly ended up having to either upgrade beyond what was reasonably expectant of a game of PSU's standing, or had to set their frame-skip values up and turn off post-effects. After such adjustments, PSU actually ran better on my PC than it did on the 360, despite my 360 being quite a bit more powerful than my PC at the time.

By your logic, the Xbox 360 is obviously the superior game console to put PSO2 on, spec wise, because the 360 version of Bayonetta doesn't chug and slow down during action scenes (I.E the whole game) like the PS3 version does.

Ishia
Mar 6, 2011, 01:47 AM
If PSO2 is ported to the PS3... enjoy your hacked to hell game.

Dongra
Mar 6, 2011, 02:14 AM
>Implying that if it wasn't on the PS3 that it wouldn't be hacked.
This game is going to be hacked even if it remains PC only. After all, this is Sega we are dealing with.

Jinketsu
Mar 6, 2011, 04:45 AM
By your logic, the Xbox 360 is obviously the superior game console to put PSO2 on, spec wise, because the 360 version of Bayonetta doesn't chug and slow down during action scenes (I.E the whole game) like the PS3 version does.

Let's not forget the few games that have 1080p support on 360 but only stretch a 720p resolution out to 1080 giving a grainy effect on the PS3. Ghostbusters is one example.

Wayu
Mar 6, 2011, 05:30 AM
If it's electronic, it one day will be hacked.

-Wayu

Ishia
Mar 6, 2011, 10:45 AM
>Implying that if it wasn't on the PS3 that it wouldn't be hacked.
This game is going to be hacked even if it remains PC only. After all, this is Sega we are dealing with.

Nope. I'm just saying its as vulnerable as a PC now. Possibly even more.

Randomness
Mar 6, 2011, 01:36 PM
If it's electronic, it one day will be hacked.

-Wayu

Depends. A thin client, where the server only trusts it to render graphics, sounds, play movies, etc. would not be "hacked" by the usual suspects. A bug exploit is possible, but that's about it unless you start doing some really illegal things (breaking into SEGA's servers to edit your stuff and all)

Being available on a console does not make it more or less easy to break into. A secure split of tasks between server and client is far more important than the platform, and is responsible for far more of the security.

Essentially, anything handled client-side can be hacked. Anything determined server-side cannot be manipulated without breaking into the server. Thus, the proper approach is to just assume the client is always lying and build the security from that standpoint, where the server handles damage, inventory, drops, etc.

Zer078
Mar 6, 2011, 01:59 PM
maybe just maybe PSO 2 wont run like crap on the pc

PSU and pSO both ran poorly on high end hardware

Dingo
Apr 1, 2011, 11:03 AM
Nope. I'm just saying its as vulnerable as a PC now. Possibly even more.

Not at all. You really need to read up on this.

BIG OLAF
Apr 1, 2011, 11:30 AM
Not at all. You really need to read up on this.

Thank you for telling someone they're completely wrong without offering some sort of link or source to prove your counterpoint.

Dingo
Apr 1, 2011, 12:02 PM
Thank you for telling someone they're completely wrong without offering some sort of link or source to prove your counterpoint.

You're welcome, mate. It never hurts to help.

Though I wouldn't use the word "completely", I figured I'd just counter the unsubstantiated FUD. Unsubstantially.

So do you see any PS3 games with online capabilities that are hacked to hell? I heard a few stories a couple weeks ago about CoD4 and MW2, but that's about it. I don't think custom firmware is even possible anymore, if you still want to be able to be connected with the new games that have been coming out.

Also:


Depends. A thin client, where the server only trusts it to render graphics, sounds, play movies, etc. would not be "hacked" by the usual suspects. A bug exploit is possible, but that's about it unless you start doing some really illegal things (breaking into SEGA's servers to edit your stuff and all)

Being available on a console does not make it more or less easy to break into. A secure split of tasks between server and client is far more important than the platform, and is responsible for far more of the security.

Essentially, anything handled client-side can be hacked. Anything determined server-side cannot be manipulated without breaking into the server. Thus, the proper approach is to just assume the client is always lying and build the security from that standpoint, where the server handles damage, inventory, drops, etc.

^This

Kent
Apr 2, 2011, 03:27 AM
So do you see any PS3 games with online capabilities that are hacked to hell? I heard a few stories a couple weeks ago about CoD4 and MW2, but that's about it.
Considering the sheer volume of people that play specifically Call of Duty games online, it would come as no surprise that people would not only actually bother to interfere with the games, but that the resultant player interference becomes so wide-spread as to be almost ubiquitous among joined games (according to most reports on the subject). I don't know if any PS3 games can claim to have online modes even close to approaching the popularity of these.

It's actually pretty likely that such things exist for other games - just that the sheer relative lack of popularity of both the games and the interference being caused by unscrupulous players in them effectively muffles the word being spread.

The current firmware of the system is still relatively fresh, so time will tell if it's actually a patch, rather than a less-surprising band-aid (though I've heard it's already been cracked, but it appears to be more like a rumor at this point).

Yuicihi
Apr 2, 2011, 09:40 AM
Because PC Gaming Master Race

As for the "Hacking" discussion, it's going to happen regardless of what it's developed for, as it has for nearly every online game out there.

On top of that, it's almost tradition for the series to be filled with "hackers", you know?

Randomness
Apr 2, 2011, 10:36 AM
Because PC Gaming Master Race

As for the "Hacking" discussion, it's going to happen regardless of what it's developed for, as it has for nearly every online game out there.

On top of that, it's almost tradition for the series to be filled with "hackers", you know?

The only "hacking" that ever occurred in PSU was exploits, which... well, there's not much you can do but respond quickly. Bugs will always exist, so...

MadDogg
Apr 4, 2011, 06:22 AM
I'm not sweating it, its pretty much guaranteed a console version of some sort. When you ask a random dude about phantasy star online, they are going to have fond memories of the dreamcast version, while the second most popular version was the gamecube. Sega would be dumb as hell to miss out on the console community that is craving another phantasy star online game. I'm betting on a 360 version seeing as we still have people playing phantasy star universe now, and if people pay to play this cra.....err, game, then people will definitely pay for a phantasy star online 2.

Canard de Bain
May 3, 2011, 02:48 PM
For the record, I hate WoW & turn based strategy games. That would be what comes to mind when I think of PC games.

I could barely resist flaming you.

r00tabaga
May 3, 2011, 03:15 PM
Let it rip brutha!

FEI LEE
May 3, 2011, 03:19 PM
Because PC gaming is superior to console gaming in about every way possible.


I've stated before fighters are horrible on pc.

Ezodagrom
May 3, 2011, 03:30 PM
I've stated before fighters are horrible on pc.
Hmm...why?
PCs support gamepads, there's even a version of the XBox 360 controller for the PC.

r00tabaga
May 3, 2011, 03:37 PM
PC's are not superior where it counts the most however........in the wallet!

Canard de Bain
May 3, 2011, 04:19 PM
PC's are not superior where it counts the most however........in the wallet!

Sure they are... get an AMD Fusion processor.

Malachite
May 3, 2011, 04:28 PM
A console with a decent HDTV costs far, far more than any reasonable PC.

When I built my PC about a year ago, it cost me around 620 dollars, and it can run damn near ANYTHING.

Beat Crysis at max at around 35FPS (even though the game sucks)

Canard de Bain
May 3, 2011, 04:29 PM
A console with a decent HDTV costs far, far more than any reasonable PC.

When I built my PC about a year ago, it cost me around 620 dollars, and it can run damn near ANYTHING.

Beat Crysis at max at around 35FPS (even though the game sucks)

Wait, Crysis was a GAME? I thought it was just a benchmark. ;P

Malachite
May 3, 2011, 04:30 PM
It pretty much is!

The actual game's quality, aside from graphics, is about on par with a generic N64 FPS.

Akaimizu
May 3, 2011, 04:41 PM
Well, I'll give it a bit more. It at least has the cool suit powers, which puts it ahead of those games. It certainly puts it beyond Wii shooters like the Conduit.

But to a degree, I hope the concentration on 1 single platform will help them focus on the support department.

Niloklives
May 3, 2011, 04:45 PM
I've stated before fighters are horrible on pc.

State whatever you want, that doesn't make it true. fighters are not traditionally a PC market and the platform is flooded with doujin(independent and typically free) fighters.

(copied and pasted)

Most fighters never get released on PC. Has nothing to do with dropped frames because even a PS3 and a 360 are known to drop frames. the last big fighter to hit PC was SFIV. seeing as a computer can run a game at 180fps and higher a sustained 60fps is nothing with a good video card. I can run most any game well above 100fps while running all sorts of background tasks. try updating your machine before you make such wild assertions.

EDIT: It's also important to mention that fighters are games of precision and it's the mark of a good player to have reliable execution for complicated combos. PCs allow for macros to be implemented that would remove all of this as all a person would have to do is hit "F8" to perform a combo relying on 1-frame links and (supposedly) a large amount of muscle memory. I'd say if anything, the threat of a PC would be removing a human element from the game. Hardware limitations though? Sorry, but you realize there are video cards available now for 50 dollars that are more advanced than a 360's video processors? there are video cards for 300-600 dollars that can be linked together (anywhere from 2 to 4 at a time) for processor sharing and allow for you to run some games on multiple screens, showing different sections that would appear in your peripheral to give you the appearance of a 180 degree view at 1080p and all the bells and whistles of AA and AF? If a PC couldn't run a fighter at 60fps after all that, what the hell does a fighting game need that a PC can't afford, but a 360 with 512mb of shared system memory could?

Zyrusticae
May 3, 2011, 06:16 PM
It pretty much is!

The actual game's quality, aside from graphics, is about on par with a generic N64 FPS.
This is so wrong it hurts.

Like most of the thing said about Crysis, for that matter.

Let's just say that if you thought Crysis was a terrible shooter, you should think ALL shooters are terrible. Because, quite frankly, you will not find a better shooter on the market - no, not even its own sequel...

t3hVeG
May 3, 2011, 06:26 PM
LOL Wii, don't kid yourself.

Malachite
May 3, 2011, 06:28 PM
This is so wrong it hurts.

Like most of the thing said about Crysis, for that matter.

Let's just say that if you thought Crysis was a terrible shooter, you should think ALL shooters are terrible. Because, quite frankly, you will not find a better shooter on the market - no, not even its own sequel...

Were you high when you played it? Because to say that Crysis is a good shooter, let alone the GREATEST shooter, is just completely ridiculous. I love shooters, and Crysis is by far one of the worst of this generation.

I mean, I'm not even sure if you're trolling me, because what you're saying is just so unbelievably wrong.

Niloklives
May 3, 2011, 06:29 PM
Yeah the fact that the Wii is a glorified PS2 with some built in flash memory and motion controls clearly puts it on the same level as a PS3 or a 360...lets put every game on the Wii, it's obviously the best console for any game no matter what.

r00tabaga
May 3, 2011, 06:35 PM
A console with a decent HDTV costs far, far more than any reasonable PC.

When I built my PC about a year ago, it cost me around 620 dollars, and it can run damn near ANYTHING.

Beat Crysis at max at around 35FPS (even though the game sucks)

Wrong. PS3 and HDTV=$1800. PC and HDTV=$2500

t3hVeG
May 3, 2011, 06:37 PM
Wrong. PS3 and HDTV=$1800. PC and HDTV=$2500

What is this? I don't even...

r00tabaga
May 3, 2011, 06:39 PM
I don't play anything on 15" screens.

Malachite
May 3, 2011, 06:39 PM
Yeah... normally, people use their monitors lol.

Like me, for example?

I play games, all the time, maxed out, in HD, with all that good stuff.

It cost me 620 dollars.

Now, a console, playing in HD in all it's goodness? You're not gonna find a decent TV for under 500 dollars, and you're not gonna find a console for under two hundred, so... yeah, do the math.

t3hVeG
May 3, 2011, 06:43 PM
I don't play anything on 15" screens.

And yet I can easily find a decent 27" 1080p monitor for $299. And that is perfectly fine for any PC user.

Niloklives
May 3, 2011, 06:44 PM
monitors cost less than a TV. you can get a 27" 1080p monitor for under 300 if you know where to look. and a good computer to play games on doesn't cost near what you think. mine was kinda expensive and cost 1200 to build. if you don't go bleeding edge, you can build a gaming rig for under 800 easily. maybe even 600.

r00tabaga
May 3, 2011, 06:44 PM
People already own tvs for dvd/cable...they're not going out and buying tvs for their consoles. Great argument <sarcasm> I'm not even against this being PC exclusive, I enjoyed psobb. The fact is a PC costs waaaay more than a console. Period!

FEI LEE
May 3, 2011, 06:44 PM
Yeah... normally, people use their monitors lol.

Like me, for example?

I play games, all the time, maxed out, in HD, with all that good stuff.

It cost me 620 dollars.

Now, a console, playing in HD in all it's goodness? You're not gonna find a decent TV for under 500 dollars, and you're not gonna find a console for under two hundred, so... yeah, do the math.

What about used consoles? Not usually the best idea but still.

Niloklives
May 3, 2011, 06:47 PM
People already own tvs for dvd/cable...they're not going out and buying tvs for their consoles. Great argument <sarcasm> I'm not even against this being PC exclusive, I enjoyed psobb. The fact is a PC costs waaaay more than a console. Period!

people already own computers too O_o

Malachite
May 3, 2011, 06:47 PM
@root. uh, yeah, people buy HDTV's for the consoles ALL the time. Unless you're cool with playing on a 20 year old SDTV.

@Grimmjo. Yes, people spend more than 1k on computers all the time. I know quite a few who have personally,

@NIloklives. lololol so true.

t3hVeG
May 3, 2011, 06:48 PM
People already own tvs for dvd/cable...they're not going out and buying tvs for their consoles. Great argument <sarcasm> I'm not even against this being PC exclusive, I enjoyed psobb. The fact is a PC costs waaaay more than a console. Period!

And there's a reason that they're more expensive: They're not running on 5-6 year old inferior hardware.

r00tabaga
May 3, 2011, 06:48 PM
U should check out Alienware...$2,000 easy for a good one that runs Crysis no prob.

Niloklives
May 3, 2011, 06:52 PM
yeah but the point is people buy new PCs all the time. if you figure that anything that isn't a POS dell or gateway is gonna run you ~600 dollars anyway. you could build a machine for gaming for not much more. the argument that a gaming PC is so expensive and everyone already has an HDTV. doesn't take into account that in order to post on the website, most people here AT SOME POINT went out and bought a computer!

Not to mention if you already bought an HDTV, it has HDMI. and half way decent computer also has HDMI. put it all together and this whole debate goes from silly to just plain stupid.

Malachite
May 3, 2011, 06:52 PM
If "U" knew anything about computers and how much they'd cost, you'd know that Alienware is the most overpriced garbage you can buy.

Niloklives
May 3, 2011, 06:52 PM
U should check out Alienware...$2,000 easy for a good one that runs Crysis no prob.

only a moron buys alienware.

my computer outclasses that machine in every way and cost almost half as much. Also, the "crysis = uber hardware" paradigm is completely dead as you don't need top of the line anything to run the game over 60fps anymore. some of the new stuff runs it well over 140fps.

r00tabaga
May 3, 2011, 06:55 PM
PC costs more than consoles.

Niloklives
May 3, 2011, 06:57 PM
rofl. ok if you spend 600 on a PC from HP and you could spend 700 to a build a gaming computer. that means you technically only spent 100 dollars to play video games.

consoles cost 300 dollars last i checked. remind me which is more expensive again please.

r00tabaga
May 3, 2011, 06:57 PM
People I work with rave about Alienware (yes, Dell) and although I'm not a PC guy, the games they run on their gaming laptops look sick. Overpriced? Probably. Junk? He'll no!

r00tabaga
May 3, 2011, 06:59 PM
700>300

Niloklives
May 3, 2011, 07:00 PM
They are absolutely junk. the fact that you could spend half as much and get the same thing is exactly what makes them junk. the extra 1000 you give them is for the nice little bumper sticker that reads "I buy stupid shit".

so you're saying you need two computers now? you can't have a gaming machine that also browses the internet? and you have kids? ...please tell me they're not home schooled.

t3hVeG
May 3, 2011, 07:00 PM
All smart people know not to buy Alienware due to the fact they overprice all of their hardware and there's also the fact that Dell owns the Alienware brand now.

And we all know Dell totally screams quality computers. /sarcasm

Malachite
May 3, 2011, 07:00 PM
700>300

But I thought you just made the argument that "People already have HDTVS"?

Yeah, people already have computers. Now you're just contradicting yourself.

r00tabaga
May 3, 2011, 07:01 PM
And I do not have a CPU. I will have to buy one for PSO2.

Malachite
May 3, 2011, 07:01 PM
You don't have a processor...?

r00tabaga
May 3, 2011, 07:03 PM
But I thought you just made the argument that "People already have HDTVS"?

Yeah, people already have computers. Now you're just contradicting yourself.

I don't! More people own tv's than PCs. Don't put words in my mouth.

r00tabaga
May 3, 2011, 07:04 PM
CPU was short for computer. You really needed to have someone explain that? Lol... I mean haha.

Malachite
May 3, 2011, 07:04 PM
More people own computers than HDTVs, that's for sure.

I'm not putting anything in your mouth, you're just spewing idiocy.

No, buddy. CPU means Central Processing Unit, AKA processor. It does not mean computer, derpie. You really need someone to explain that? Lol

t3hVeG
May 3, 2011, 07:04 PM
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/526/reallynin.jpg

Niloklives
May 3, 2011, 07:05 PM
How many gamers don't own a PC? how many people who frequent the internet don't own a PC? it's not about how many TVs there are to PCs. that ratio is skewed by the fact that most people own 3-4 TVs per house. One person would have a TV for the living room, the bed room and the dining room. far fewer have multiple computers.

and HDTV? sorry but I have a nice computer and got a TV later. in my home we have 4 TVs and only one of them is HD. the rest are good ol' CRTs

and CPU is short for central processing unit. saying CPU to describe a whole machine is a misnomer based on the premise that CPU was short for computer when it's not

You're arguing for a majority when you're clearly in the minority.

Ezodagrom
May 3, 2011, 07:06 PM
CPU was short for computer. You really needed to have someone explain that? Lol... I mean haha.
CPU is not short for computer, CPU = Central Processing Unit, that is, the processor.

r00tabaga
May 3, 2011, 07:07 PM
U r a nerd. U come off as being very nerdy.

Malachite
May 3, 2011, 07:08 PM
You come off as being VERY, very stupid.

I mean, calling people nerds, on a forum based around an online RPG?

Yeah, derpie.

t3hVeG
May 3, 2011, 07:09 PM
U r a nerd. U come off as being very nerdy.

Oh man, you're pulling the nerd card now.

This just keeps getting better and better.

Niloklives
May 3, 2011, 07:09 PM
We're nerds cause we're at least partially educated?

Malachite
May 3, 2011, 07:10 PM
"You're smarter than me, so you're obviously a nerd"

Gotta love that logic.

Ezodagrom
May 3, 2011, 07:11 PM
@r00tabaga:
A reasonable PC is not much more expensive than a console, a reasonable PC alone (that is, no peripherals, no Operative System, no monitor) can cost around $400~$450. A console alone costs around $300 or so.
But, in the end, a decent full PC is actually cheaper than a console with a decent HDTV.

r00tabaga
May 3, 2011, 07:11 PM
I have to say this is funny now. For the record, I use CPU as a shorthand for computer b/c it's hard to type on an iPhone......S O R R Y to all the nerds who have taken exception to this error.

•Col•
May 3, 2011, 07:13 PM
CPU was short for computer. You really needed to have someone explain that? Lol... I mean haha.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v175/1234554321/canvas.png

Malachite
May 3, 2011, 07:14 PM
I have to say this is funny now. For the record, I use CPU as a shorthand for computer b/c it's hard to type on an iPhone......S O R R Y to all the nerds who have taken exception to this error.

No, you don't. You're just stupid and you didn't know the difference, because it's obviously a lot easier to type "PC" than "CPU".

As per the nerd point, I can guarantee we're all a lot more socially presentable than your stupid ass.

FEI LEE
May 3, 2011, 07:15 PM
I have to say this is funny now. For the record, I use CPU as a shorthand for computer b/c it's hard to type on an iPhone......S O R R Y to all the nerds who have taken exception to this error.

Oh wow....please...just stop.

r00tabaga
May 3, 2011, 07:15 PM
@r00tabaga:
A reasonable PC is not much more expensive than a console, a reasonable PC alone (that is, no peripherals, no Operative System, no monitor) can cost around $400~$450. A console alone costs around $300 or so.
But, in the end, a decent full PC is actually cheaper than a console with a decent HDTV.

My buds all have consoles. None have gaming PCs, so anything they need to buy or upgrade is gonna cost loot...lots of loot. You all are set b/c this is a forum for PC gaming d'oh!

FEI LEE
May 3, 2011, 07:18 PM
My buds all have consoles. None have gaming PCs, so anything they need to buy or upgrade is gonna cost loot...lots of loot. You all are set b/c this is a forum for PC gaming d'oh!

No it's because all your experiences seem to come from a group of friends.

Malachite
May 3, 2011, 07:18 PM
I'm willing to bet all of his "experiences" come from nowhere other than his inept little mind.

r00tabaga
May 3, 2011, 07:18 PM
No, you don't. You're just stupid and you didn't know the difference, because it's obviously a lot easier to type "PC" than "CPU".

As per the nerd point, I can guarantee we're all a lot more socially presentable than your stupid ass.

Did I upset you there guy. I'm sorry

Niloklives
May 3, 2011, 07:20 PM
My buds all have consoles. None have gaming PCs, so anything they need to buy or upgrade is gonna cost loot...lots of loot. You all are set b/c this is a forum for PC gaming d'oh!

but you're totally willing to spend 200 dollars on a phone...nice.

Malachite
May 3, 2011, 07:20 PM
Did I upset you there guy. I'm sorry

Not at all, guy. I was merely describing the amount of stupid you seem to presenting to the world.

If it came off as mad, that's your own fault for being too sensitive and... well... stupid.

r00tabaga
May 3, 2011, 07:22 PM
but you're totally welling to spend 200 dollars on a phone...nice.

1) Work phone
2) welling???

•Col•
May 3, 2011, 07:22 PM
I have to say this is funny now. For the record, I use CPU as a shorthand for computer b/c it's hard to type on an iPhone......S O R R Y to all the nerds who have taken exception to this error.

Like someone already mentioned, PC is a much better (and technically easier) abbreviation to use for computer.

You referring to a computer as a CPU actually isn't that much of an uncommon misconception. It's funny because you threw it in his face like "lol how don't you know that". Karma, man.

Karma.

r00tabaga
May 3, 2011, 07:24 PM
Not at all, guy. I was merely describing the amount of stupid you seem to presenting to the world.

If it came off as mad, that's your own fault for being too sensitive and... well... stupid.

When you turn 21 , let me know so that I can call you what I really wanna say. The other guys, I actually like their posts...you are a fool.

FEI LEE
May 3, 2011, 07:24 PM
http://www.gamepad-dojo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/phoenix-wright-objection.jpg
but you're totally welling to spend 200 dollars on a phone...nice.

There is contraindication in your argument r00tabaga!

Malachite
May 3, 2011, 07:24 PM
1) Work phone
2) welling???

1. iPhone... for work? Seems a tad expensive for a work phone... which you happen to be using to go to PSOworld. I guess it must be work related somehow?
2. Typo?

Also, wtf does age have to do with what you want to say? Weren't you just making the argument that kids play M games all the time? lol.

I'm certain you must be about 15.

Zyrusticae
May 3, 2011, 07:26 PM
Were you high when you played it? Because to say that Crysis is a good shooter, let alone the GREATEST shooter, is just completely ridiculous. I love shooters, and Crysis is by far one of the worst of this generation.

I mean, I'm not even sure if you're trolling me, because what you're saying is just so unbelievably wrong.
If you can name me one shooter that has

A. Better AI,
B. Better shooting mechanics,
C. Fully destructible environments,
D. Better physics,
E. Better abilities,
F. Bigger levels, or
G. Better graphics,

you MIGHT have a point.

Otherwise you're just talking lunacy. Also bad taste. Also complete lack of creativity (as I have noticed many Crysis haters suffering from, as they, for one reason another, CANNOT wrap their heads around the suit powers).

The only thing Halo has up on it is the variety of enemies and maybe, POSSIBLY the setting (but the actual rendering of it is HORRIBLE). Call of Duty is a glorified shooting gallery. Battlefield is pure multiplayer, and blatantly inferior with any of its single-player modes. If you start treading towards Bioshock and Unreal Tournament the comparisons start wearing really, really thin.

For what it is, Crysis does the shooting genre better than anyone else. It's the only shooter released in 2007 that I STILL replay to this day, and as a lifelong gamer, that says something.

Calling it "the worst of this generation" is definitely either trolling or sheer lunacy. Possibly both.

r00tabaga
May 3, 2011, 07:27 PM
Like someone already mentioned, PC is a much better (and technically easier) abbreviation to use for computer.

You referring to a computer as a CPU actually isn't that much of an uncommon misconception. It's funny because you threw it in his face like "lol how don't you know that". Karma, man.

Karma.

I used CPU one fucking time! I used PC 100 times. Who the god damn fuck cares about acronyms! I obviously know what RAM, DRAM, flash, CPU, etc mean. Get off my nuts. I'm a technician with a bad habit of using shorthand...wow people. Some of you are reaching.

Niloklives
May 3, 2011, 07:28 PM
Elaborate = good


That's a fallacy and it's clearly an opinion, not a fact or an idea that can be argued over. there's really no point is forcing the issue.


I used CPU one fucking time! I used PC 100 times. Who the god damn fuck cares about acronyms! I obviously know what RAM, DRAM, flash, CPU, etc mean. Get off my nuts. I'm a technician with a bad habit of using shorthand...wow people. Some of you are reaching.

you're a technician who doesn't own a computer and thinks alienware is good...you must work for bestbuy

Malachite
May 3, 2011, 07:29 PM
If you can name me one shooter that has

A. Better AI,
B. Better shooting mechanics,
C. Fully destructible environments,
D. Better physics,
E. Better abilities,
F. Bigger levels, or
G. Better graphics,

you MIGHT have a point.

Otherwise you're just talking lunacy. Also bad taste. Also complete lack of creativity (as I have noticed many Crysis haters suffering from, as they, for one reason another, CANNOT wrap their heads around the suit powers).

The only thing Halo has up on it is the variety of enemies and maybe, POSSIBLY the setting (but the actual rendering of it is HORRIBLE). Call of Duty is a glorified shooting gallery. Battlefield is pure multiplayer, and blatantly inferior with any of its single-player modes. If you start treading towards Bioshock and Unreal Tournament the comparisons start wearing really, really thin.

For what it is, Crysis does the shooting genre better than anyone else. It's the only shooter released in 2007 that I STILL replay to this day, and as a lifelong gamer, that says something.

Calling it "the worst of this generation" is definitely either trolling or sheer lunacy. Possibly both.

Halo is garbage as well, and what are you talking about AI? The soldiers in Crysis DROWN THEMSELVES. lol! As for the shooting mechanics, they're clunky and terrible. Bullets miss for no reason, and I've put multiple clips into soldiers on multiple occasions, only for them to be unaffected.

Crysis is BAD. Halo is worse, but Crysis is still very bad.

r00tabaga
May 3, 2011, 07:29 PM
That wasn't to at you Calaya.

Malachite
May 3, 2011, 07:31 PM
You're a technician now? Lol, are you trying to say you're a computer tech... who doesn't own a computer?

Wow, and WE'RE reaching?

•Col•
May 3, 2011, 07:32 PM
That wasn't to at you Calaya.

.....Wat.

FEI LEE
May 3, 2011, 07:32 PM
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn196/Gohon7/45bdbe80.gif
I used CPU one fucking time! I used PC 100 times. Who the god damn fuck cares about acronyms!

Aren't you the one who was ready to laugh at someone for being wrong though?

r00tabaga
May 3, 2011, 07:32 PM
1. iPhone... for work? Seems a tad expensive for a work phone... which you happen to be using to go to PSOworld. I guess it must be work related somehow?
2. Typo?

Also, wtf does age have to do with what you want to say? Weren't you just making the argument that kids play M games all the time? lol.

I'm certain you must be about 15.

I was not in that argument...... Nice try kid

Niloklives
May 3, 2011, 07:33 PM
and yes "welling" was a typo. It's been corrected.

Zyrusticae
May 3, 2011, 07:33 PM
Halo is garbage as well, and what are you talking about AI? The soldiers in Crysis DROWN THEMSELVES. lol! As for the shooting mechanics, they're clunky and terrible. Bullets miss for no reason, and I've put multiple clips into soldiers on multiple occasions, only for them to be unaffected.

Crysis is BAD. Halo is worse, but Crysis is still very bad.
You're talking out of your ASS.

Done here, nothing to talk about as I am clearly bashing my head against a wall of moronitude.

r00tabaga
May 3, 2011, 07:34 PM
You're a technician now? Lol, are you trying to say you're a computer tech... who doesn't own a computer?

Wow, and WE'RE reaching?

Telecom tech, yes...4 yr degree, yes...no PC, yes...forum troll, no that would be your job

Malachite
May 3, 2011, 07:36 PM
I was not in that argument...... Nice try kid

My bad, I saw something stupid and automatically associated it with you, lol.

Niloklives
May 3, 2011, 07:37 PM
Telecom tech, yes...4 yr degree, yes...no PC, yes...forum troll, no that would be your job

You've kinda dug yourself a hole here and already climbed in. I'd suggest you back out before everyone decides to start piling on the dirt.

r00tabaga
May 3, 2011, 07:37 PM
.....Wat.

I wasn't upset at you......I just used ur quote

FEI LEE
May 3, 2011, 07:38 PM
My bad, I saw something stupid and automatically associated it with you, lol.

That was my argument but we saw where that went. The same place this is going lol

r00tabaga
May 3, 2011, 07:40 PM
You've kinda dug yourself a hole here and already climbed in. I'd suggest you back out before everyone decides to bury you.

Wtf is your deal? You are so hung up on an acronym, grow up. I've seen you on these boards forever & never had beef w/you ( I normally side w/you) and your taking this thing too far. Not sure if you're joking or not but let's get back on track here.

Malachite
May 3, 2011, 07:41 PM
You're talking out of your ASS.

Done here, nothing to talk about as I am clearly bashing my head against a wall of moronitude.

Go type "Crysis AI" into youtube, lol.

You'll find a lot of videos of "my ass".

r00tabaga
May 3, 2011, 07:42 PM
My thing is the same as it ever was. Many people would rather this be multi-platform due to not having gaming PCs. I will be getting one eventually and I'll leave it at that. Good day folks.

r00tabaga
May 3, 2011, 07:45 PM
Obnoxious little frog, hmmmm...I agree. You'll pick a fight w/anyone right now. Go figure, Pittsburgh, aka "armpit capital of the world".....lol

Zyrusticae
May 3, 2011, 07:48 PM
Go type "Crysis AI" into youtube, lol.

You'll find a lot of videos of "my ass".
Completely missing the point, I see.

The "drowning" is a very obvious bug because the game does not account for whether or not an NPC's head is above the water (as they don't care to simulate breathing). This has almost NO impact on actual play, and using it as an example only shows how utterly shortsighted you are.

Also, your talk on the bullet physics is complete ignorance, hence you are talking out of your ass.

Also also, in case you can't get the message, you're a toad. :rolleyes:

FEI LEE
May 3, 2011, 07:49 PM
Obnoxious little frog, hmmmm...I agree. You'll pick a fight w/anyone right now. Go figure, Pittsburgh, aka "armpit capital of the world".....lol

http://angryanimebitches.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/phoenix_wright_hold_it.gif

You want to get back on track yet you make a comment like that?

r00tabaga
May 3, 2011, 07:51 PM
I had to take one last shot when I saw where he was from, sorry. My bad I know.

Vashyron
May 3, 2011, 07:51 PM
Go type "Crysis AI" into youtube, lol.

You'll find a lot of videos of "my ass".

Eh? Of course people would only bother to put up funny or buggy AI instances. (First video in fact the person is using a console command for the AI to ignore the player.)

I've played trough Crysis and Crysis Warhead a few times and I've never noticed anything as dumb as those videos tend to show off, they are there for the abnormal "lulz."

Ryna
May 3, 2011, 07:53 PM
I'm locking this thread since it has veered wildly off-topic.