So, any mods for PS3 to play import PS1/2 games?

[CrazyJo82]

Some next gen game's requirement aren't as bad... you can REALLY run it on minimum requirement. but then buying different parts are really a hassle, I think... you want a nice and cheap but you can always end up paying $500+ for the latest grahpics card... but it will last you a few years for the new games.

and then every few years you'll consider buying a brand new mobo and chip... and well, you might as well buy a new computer. lol

[ParanoiaDragon]

Yeah, I too am iffy about online content like patches & stuff, I really don't like doing that with PC games, & so logically I don't want to have to do that with console games either. And having to pay for extra stuff, just pisses me off.

[CrazyJo82]

but with some PC games, there are A LOT of custom made missions. Have anyone played or heard of Thief: The Dark Project? or Thief: The Metal Age? The fan base here are so loyal that when Looking Glass Studio (original creator) closed it doors, the fans made an expansion that's almost like an original production.

You can't download custom maps or missions on the console UNLESS the game originally has that option (FFXII... right?).

[Stan]

Well, everyone here already has a computer (unless they access this site at a friend's place, or the library, or whatever). And even a basic computer these days allows for a wide range of games. (Of course, the latest and greatest will have high system requirements.) It could just be the fact that I'm a computer engineer, or a student, or both, but I see a capable computer as a necessity. While I use "capable" to denote things other than merely games, I find that it doesn't cost me all that much more to build the computer I already need to be able to handle most games reasonably well. I mean, I don't go out of my way for the $500 video cards, or super-fast RAM. But, when I replace an old computer with a newer one, I find that it really only takes a little more (for me, less than $200 more) to get the extra power to make the machine able to play games reasonably well. Sure, I won't be enabling all the effects on the highest resolution on games released two years later, but the computer should be able to play them.

Granted, as I said earlier, I'm a rare consumer who is not averse to carefully selecting and configuring my computer. I have a good background and a fair amount of experience doing so. But if I already deem a computer in my home to be necessary, I can easily get a gaming system out of it for a marginal additional cost. Sure beats a $600 console for me (until I get hooked by some exclusive titles ).

For example, three years ago I decided to get a desktop. I already had a laptop, as required by my university's college of engineering. But the laptop was getting old and the hard drive was failing. I really needed a more stable machine, and I wanted more storage space, too. So I assembled my own system, from scratch, for about $600. And would you believe, I was able to play every game on the market? For a couple years to come? Even Doom III. Eventually games started requiring more power and the more recent shaders and such (about the time F.E.A.R. came out), and it couldn't keep up. But it had a good little run. And if I'd put a little more money into it back then to get a mobo that had PCI Express slots, upgrading would've been just the cost of another mid-range graphics card. (As it is now, the mobo's a socket 754 with AGP, so it's probably not worth upgrading. It needs a full replacement soon. And when I get my job, that's what I'll get, and I'll have a nice backup compuer/file server or something.)

I certainly understand the arguments for consoles, and I can empathize with the arguers. I own a PS2, and when I have more cash on hand, I'll probably spring for a next-gen console. But for me, I'll always have a few PC games installed.

[Falcom Director of Fanservice]

You see this? This is Deuce being very correct in all things.

I found the one real advantage PC gaming has over Console gaming is in input devices. A keyboard allows you a lot of buttons to do things very quickly, and a mouse gives you a lot of control for selecting things on screen. Together, they are a mighty duo!

BUT!

Several systems these days have keyboard attachments. And, things like the Wiimote can mimic a mouse pretty well. Really, so can any thumbstick, though they are only a fraction as fast and probably not so hot for twitch games like FPSes.

[CrazyJo82]

Captain... let me ask you, would you actually spend the, I dont know, $100 on the keyboard, mouse and the adaptor (if needed) for the console on the FPS games? I hardly doubt that. I find it a waste of money to spend money on the Logitech USB keyboard for the ps2 (no, I didn't buy it... that thing is huge! and not very ergonomic for your hand. you have to like stretch your arms).

Let's face it, there will be people who are the console gamers and there are those who are PC gamers. It really depends on your game genre preference. I own a PS2, TurboGrafx16, a GBC and of course the PC. I can tell you I dont have a clear winner if you asked me to pick one gaming method.

I love my ps2, I love the games that's available only on the PS2 (ie. Ratchet and Clank series, Soul Calibur 2 & 3). I love my TG16 (even though it doesn't work) cause some of the games are just great fun. I love the GBC for its portability (but I dont have much of a collection on that - and I plan to get a PSP and/or DS). And I love my PC for PC only games (even though, I don't have the high-end) and the fact that there are TONNES of free games. There are some decent free games (I play Digital Paint: Paintball 2.0 and trying out America's Army) that you can't get on console.

So there isn't a "better" gaming tool... just what you prefer as a gamer.

[Falcom Director of Fanservice]

Wait. Why would I buy a keyboard for a console FPS when the controls were already adapted to work with a control pad? I mean, even if I used a keyboard with a PS2 game, I would still be limited to what a PS2 controller could do. So that question doesn't even make sense, why are you asking it?

And why would you deny a keyboard is useful? I never said it was best, but I did point out that it gives you a tremendous amount of control over what you're doing. Ever play a roguelike? They are designed to use all the keys you have, if you want to use them. There are shortcuts for all sorts of things that you could never shortcut on a controller. It actually makes porting a roguelike to a console, even via homebrew, something of a challenge because you have to par so much of it away. Then look at the typical RTS released for PC, again you'll find dozens of useful shortcuts, way more than you'll ever have on a console controller.

In fact, what is your point? Are you trying to say that certain types of game will only thrive on certain platforms? That's pretty patently false. Anything you find on PC, you can probably find on console somewhere. Both have their RTS games, both have their roguelikes (Given the classic American style ones are very rare due to high difficulty), you'll definitely find FPS games. Even given the vast difference in input methods, you can still port between the two with relative ease in that regard; a popular method being to replace shortcuts with menus. So there's no real barrier in that regard.

So...I really don't even know what you're trying to say. Keyboards and mice definitely give one options that controllers do not. And even with that, there's really nothing that physically stops games from appearing on all platforms (Economics and such not being physical barriers, mind you). So, could you clarify a bit? I can't help but feel I grabbed the bull by the horns from the wrong end.

[sideshow]

Getting back to topic, it would be great if the company who made Breaker Pro would make a PS3 edition which played PS1/PS2 imports. Although if this disc would come about it would be illegal in the US as most online modchip sites refuse to sell the original Breaker Pro to US residents due to copyright infringement laws.

[CrazyJo82]

captain said:

In fact, what is your point? Are you trying to say that certain types of game will only thrive on certain platforms? That's pretty patently false. Anything you find on PC, you can probably find on console somewhere.

actually, i think it works the other way around unless it was one of those classic titles that "had to go onto a console just to squeeze the extra dollar on a game that's dead for about 5 years." not to mention out dated graphics and usually horrible port.

yes, some games only thrive on certain platform.

[Falcom Director of Fanservice]

Except they don't? The simple fact that games exist on multiple platforms blatantly disproves it. Any type of game on any type of platform, as long as the game is competently made, will find an audience. While some people are vocal or pedantic about their platforms, they tend to be the exception rather than the norm (And the Fallout Fandom tends to be the exception that proves the rule =])

I think you are mistaking business practices for axioms. The only reason there is such a divide between PC gaming and Console gaming, really, is overly cautious business practices. But look at our own Ys; it's been released on numerous console and computer platforms, and has thrived in both. FPS and RTS has thrived on consoles, MMOs thrive on both. Even platformers can be found on PC, in the form of gems like Cave Story.

So, really, your statement isn't reflected in reality, it's just conventional wisdom that neither conventional or wise. It's, as I said, spun by developers who'd prefer to stick to one platform rather than invest in diversifying.

[FM-77AV]

Wasn't Psychonauts a mega flop for like, every platform? I think it sold about two or three copies in Europe - for all platforms combined.

[Falcom Director of Fanservice]

Psychonauts would fall under the competently made part of the deal, what with it being a below average platformer at heart.

Which is sad, as all other aspects of it were awesome.

[Falcom Director of Fanservice]

So you disprove my point by proving my point? The very fact Falcom can successfully release console style stuff on PC rather proves that anything can thrive on any platform, as long as its competently made. What you're quote aren't reasons why certain kinds of games do less well on PC. Those are reasons why games in general tend to do less well on PC. RTS and FPS have the exact same concerns. Until recently, the only true advantage PCs had was online connection, and that has been evaporating since the Dreamcast days. And in particular since the Xbox days.

But you understand my point, I hope. The success of game type does not depend on platform. Other factors can sink a game, but platform alone is not enough.

And, hopefully, my original point also remains: A keyboard and Mouse combo are fine input devices for many kinds of games.

[Falcom Director of Fanservice]

You forgot Roguelikes. >=[

Also, if I'm not mistaken, wasn't Herzog Zwei, one of the original, if not the original RTS, on a console? Really, I think you're mistaking a different factor for the cause of RTS not doing well on consoles: Namely the hitherto recent lack of online connectivity in consoles. You have to consider that most gamers are not glittering gems of hatred who eschew one platform for another because they hate the platform. Do such people exist? Yes. Are they numerous? Not so much. But if you have some hard data to back that up, I'd be pleased to see it and recant my position if the data is valid.

My point is that the split is artificial, and it would die in an instant if the options to let it do so existed and were not half-assed. And you would see that consoles would still get more sales because of the reasons mentioned previously, PCs are not plug and play like consoles, and because consoles are less prone to glitches due to having only one job.

[Falcom Director of Fanservice]

Your last line makes me grin with goodness.

I would say that the thing which we disagree isn't so much pessimism versus optimism as much as it is demographics. You seem to think that the majority of gamers are fairly well informed and have built up very strong preferences toward platform. I think that the majority don't care about platform so much as the quality of that platform's releases, and are really not too well informed. The informed bit explaining why some things slip under the table and others do not, people don't know there are better alternatives. Or, in your argument as I understand, do know there are better alternatives but ignore them due whatever reason.

Instantly was a bit of a strong word. But I do believe if the options came to be overnight, within a short period of time the divide would be history.