Ports
Ive noticed in alot of ports ive played such as Sa2 Battle was awsome on the Dc but was somewhat lackster or had just lost the feel of quality of the origional. Same thing goes with Grandia 2 i loved the Dreamcast version but the port on ps2 had lost the feeling of the game.. Most of the ports ive played seem somewhat rushed and/or not as good as the origional.. what do you think about this?
I agree with you on this one. However, it all depends on the company who created the game in the first place and how they feel about the system they're porting to.
EA is obviously not going to do squat for Xbox... the president even said this past week (in the "no-online-for-Xbox" press release) that Sony has won the console war. Don't expect their ports to be anything special. In fact, they're worse on Xbox than they are on PS2.
Konami, on the other hand, has a genuine interest in the Xbox and it's capabilities. Silent Hill 2 was the first big-news port, and they really did some special stuff for it's Xbox release.
As for Rockstar/Take Two/DMA... the jury's still out on this one.
Every port i have ever played has been inferior to the origional, even if it does have extra stuff it still doesnt help it much.... Unless the spend ALOT of time working on the port... which most companies dont because there working on other projects...
Ports are for companies that are only concerned with money and care little about the quality of the games they release. Ports suck and so do the companies that release them with no adaptations for the xbox's superior capabilities.
As far as Silent Hill 2 was concerned, I don't think Konami spent a great deal of time on the port, but they really made it something special. In addition to improved graphics, they gave you the option to turn off the film grain, decreased the load times, fixed the lag problem that was on the PS2 version, cleaned up the jaggies, and added a whole new scenario to play (a sort-of mini game).
Compare that to EA titles, where they don't add anything extra, still use graphics that are far below what Xbox is capable of, don't speed up load times, and now won't contain online play (which will be present on all their PS2 releases.)
If you want good ports, you just need to get the right games...
Generally the companies that just do straight ports don't have very good games anyway.
I just thought of something. Wouldn't that be hilarious if all Xbox owners sued EA for not providing them with the services that EA should be providing? I think it'd be funny, because EA think they're saving money by not optimizing games for a better platform that fewer people have. But now, if those 10 million gamers or however many there are, each sued EA for 5 bucks apiece, that's a hell of a lot of money. Then I think EA might see that it'd be more profitable to not be jackasses.But like I said, I've never really liked an EA game before, with the exception being Bullfrog titles from the early-mid 90's.
I hope Skies for Gc doesnt turn out like Grandia 2 did for Ps2... I also hope the xbox port of GTA3 is not a rushed/lackster port..
So far we don't know what Take 2's position is on the Xbox. They certainly haven't been forthcoming with the progress of GTA3, and Sony is supplying ALL financial assistance for advertisements. Take 2 seems to like the Xbox in press releases, but until we see final products on the Xbox, there's no way to tell for sure.
yea.... after all my hype over GTA III , it better not be rushed. I would be really p*ssed of because it is such an incredible game. But chances r it will b great. I mean the original wasnt that bad now if R* is goanna make it up to X-Box standars>>>That will be sweet<<<...
1) There are nowhere near ten million XBOX users worldwide. I don't think there are even two million yet.Originally posted by RadRider
Generally the companies that just do straight ports don't have very good games anyway.
I just thought of something. Wouldn't that be hilarious if all Xbox owners sued EA for not providing them with the services that EA should be providing? I think it'd be funny, because EA think they're saving money by not optimizing games for a better platform that fewer people have. But now, if those 10 million gamers or however many there are, each sued EA for 5 bucks apiece, that's a hell of a lot of money. Then I think EA might see that it'd be more profitable to not be jackasses.
2) You can't sue somebody just because their software doesn't include a feature that you want.
Hugh, there is approx 2 1/2 to 3 million XBOX owners world wide. Sales have taken off since the price drops everywhere.
What is happening is that people are sticking with the PS2, and people new to it seem to be going to it, rather than to the new guy. I guess so far you can call the XBOX the Beta of the console wars, the better technological solution, but no one is buying it.
Sony has dropped the prices of their most popular games, which have been out for a little while to under $AU 50 , which makes them half the XBOX price.
This is where I see the newer buyers of the PS2 being attracted to the platform, when they see the XBOX games are double those of the best selling games on the PS2. I don't think that people are looking at the price of new games, which are much closer to those of the XBOX - they will find that out later. Sony has the advantage of having a back catalogue for their system, and dropping game prices to keep their customers loyal.
Doesn't help that MS isn't doing a create deal to advertise the XBOX to the non-tech head, they aren't advertising to the general public as such. Is this perhaps a deliberate tactic by MS, that they will get a foothold first, and then bring out the next console, and with a loyal base, they will then launch a full assault on Sony and Nintendo.
As for the suing of EA, there is potential, since if they release the same game on different platforms, WHY should they discriminate against the owners of the XBOX, a platform that has the technical capabilities to provide the features they have given to the game on another console. If the XBOX couldn't do it, then I'd be fine with it.
Last edited by BCan; 05-18-2002 at 08:55 PM.
Hugh Jass. I never said there were 10 million users. I said 10 million, or however many there are. That last part being stressed.
And I didn't say it was feasible in any way to sue EA. That whole paragraph was laced with a tone of naivety. I guess there are people who would want to sue EA for making crappy ports, but come on. Who in there right mind would actually do that? If it's not completely obvious that paragraph was sarcastic, then I guess I'm sorry. But come on. Who's really crazy enough to think like that?
I still don't think it's feasible to sue someone just because they make something you don't like or don't add things that you want. Knowing what's good and what's bad is something that you have to do as a conscientious consumer. Unfortunately, EA has the right to discriminate against the Xbox and they've chosen to use it.Originally posted by BCan
As for the suing of EA, there is potential, since if they release the same game on different platforms, WHY should they discriminate against the owners of the XBOX, a platform that has the technical capabilities to provide the features they have given to the game on another console. If the XBOX couldn't do it, then I'd be fine with it.
You can't sue a game company for the quality of their product, or distinct lack thereof. If you could, I'd be suing VR1 over Nightcaster claming psychological and emotional damage... and I'm not even the one who paid the money to rent it!
Sometimes its just a mind-set. You know it already came out and its not on the console that it should be on (Dreamcast). You probably haven't gotten use to associating Sonic with Nintendo, and all other Sega titles for that matter.
All losers have a place in this world, the make the winners look good.
Check out what Red Storm is doing for Ghost Recon. Also remember that Halo was technically a port.
If it were on Dreamcast though, nobody would be able to experience it, it'd run in framerates lower than 20 fps, and the controls would be so infuriating, that whoever did play it would hate it! (because of the terrible controllers, not the developers inability to make good controls.) Well, that's all I could see it being, what with my experience with the Dreamcast anyway. And trust me, I was once a hardcore Dreamcast fan - until I got the system and played the heck out of it for a couple months.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks