Immediate Criticisms

Nightwolf said:
Eight players? Sounds fun, but wouldn't nine be more logical? Three in the top row, three in the middle, three in the bottom. That was all screens are equally big. Or then again four in the top row, four in the bottom. Oh. :-[

Anyway, what they should focus on instead is having a multitap that works on tv's instead of controllers. Instead of sharing a screen, you have one tv each. Technically, it's not harder than having a split-screen, or so I imagine. 'sides, it would be a lot more fun as you could turn the tv's around and not be able to watch what the other person(s) are doing. This is particullar important in deathmatch games or games where you play against an opponent. Plus you could have two tv's, both split in four and have eight players at once without reducing the screen size that much. I'm a genius! :woot
Click to expand...

Sorry but Its been done. The original PS had the link cable that you can buy, not sure about PS2. It wasnt successful. I think not too many people have the luxury of having two tv's, two PS's, and two copies of a game. It was too much of a hassle.
 
Point is you don't need two copies of the game, or two consoles. You play normal split-screen, but on two different tv's. All you need is another tv and a friend. You do have those, right? :D Your friend brings his or her own tv, and that's all you need. It sounds a lot more logical to me than having eight controllers. Let's get real, when was the last time you were more than four people playing on the same console at the same time anyway? :?
 
Nightwolf said:
Point is you don't need two copies of the game, or two consoles. You play normal split-screen, but on two different tv's. All you need is another tv and a friend. You do have those, right? :D Your friend brings his or her own tv, and that's all you need. It sounds a lot more logical to me than having eight controllers. Let's get real, when was the last time you were more than four people playing on the same console at the same time anyway? :?
Click to expand...

Uh yeah. Im going to bring my 32" tv to my friends house to play. Sorry but thats not very logical. My point is that nobody is going to want to lug around their tv. Even if you have a tv that is small enough to carry it will be too small to enjoy it. Which is the main reason why the link cable didnt work. And like ive said before people use those ports to play sports games. Which is the major selling point for a multi-tap.
 
I see your point, but think about it. You have a great game you enjoy. Your friend has the same game and enjoys it. The two of you can visit each other and play together on a split-screen. Sounds fine, right? But if you got a smaller tv, you can easily carry it to your friend's house and play on both tv's. Sure the tv won't be a 32" plasme screen and all that, but at least it beats cutting a normal screen in half. Besides, having your own screen is far better than two people playing on the same one. Deathmatch don't work on split-screen, and racing games will be messed up since you get confused by the other half of the screen.
 
I see your point also. I would love to play multiplayer games on different tv's. But right now there isn't a practical way to play them.
 
Sorry but Its been done. The original PS had the link cable that you can buy, not sure about PS2. It wasnt successful. I think not too many people have the luxury of having two tv's, two PS's, and two copies of a game. It was too much of a hassle.
Click to expand...

I would know, I used to have one, but me and my brother lost it. Provided we could find somebody willing to bring over a second TV and PSX (or vise-versa), we could get a nice game of Command and Conquer: Red Alert : Retaliation going. It was very fund, but it was just too hard to get the setup going.
 
Ya, we used to system link Halo and Halo 2 a lot, but it is a pain in the @$$ to get 2 TV's, 8 controllers, 2 systems, 2 game copies, a link cable, and so on. Plus it was hard to plan it for a day where 8 people could make it for more than 1-2 hours. We do play 3-4 player games a lot though, even with small splitscreens.

Eight players? Sounds fun, but wouldn't nine be more logical? Three in the top row, three in the middle, three in the bottom. That was all screens are equally big. Or then again four in the top row, four in the bottom.
Click to expand...

Once again, I don't think they enabled 8 controllers per system for splitscreen multiplayer.
 
KazumaYoshikuni said:
360 will own you and PS3 shall be Garbage.

Revolution will complemnt the 360 nicely though
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with you not liking the PS3, but calling it garbage at this point in time is kind of rediculous.
 
KazumaYoshikuni said:
Well it looks like a Dumpster and given Sony's history the first batch will be as good as garbage (and horribly defective)
Click to expand...

Xbox wasnt free of defects either. The first batch had bad drives in them. It happens. It shouldnt, but it happens even to the best of companies.
 
KazumaYoshikuni said:
the Tompson drive varies I have a first wave XBOX and beside it being picky about dvd movies I've had no problems with it
Click to expand...

Mine just totally didnt want to play some games altogether. So I sold it. Ill pick one up eventually.
 
First of all the PS3 can support seven SIGNALS through bluetooth this doesn't necessarily mean games will support 7 controllers. Rather more like 4 controllers a mouse and keyboard and your cellphone.
How can anyone complain about online, paying 50 dollars a year is nothing. If you can't afford that you shouldn't be playing video games. It is better to pay for it because you get more support for games and the servers do not lag as much if they are well funded. Also there is going to be a free version of Xbox Live. You will be able to chat, download patches/demos, purchase things, and chat with friends. The version that you pay for will let you do all that and play games online. So all the extra bells and whistles are free.
Another thing, the reason the Logitech wireless controllers lagged so much was mostly due to the fact that it was third party. I doubt a first party wireless controller would lag it as much as the Logitech ones do.
 
Fatty said:
First of all the PS3 can support seven SIGNALS through bluetooth this doesn't necessarily mean games will support 7 controllers. Rather more like 4 controllers a mouse and keyboard and your cellphone.
How can anyone complain about online, paying 50 dollars a year is nothing. If you can't afford that you shouldn't be playing video games. It is better to pay for it because you get more support for games and the servers do not lag as much if they are well funded. Also there is going to be a free version of Xbox Live. You will be able to chat, download patches/demos, purchase things, and chat with friends. The version that you pay for will let you do all that and play games online. So all the extra bells and whistles are free.
Another thing, the reason the Logitech wireless controllers lagged so much was mostly due to the fact that it was third party. I doubt a first party wireless controller would lag it as much as the Logitech ones do.
Click to expand...

I didnt know that I need to afford certain luxuries before Im allowed to play games. Screw that I will play video games whether or not I can afford online play. Sometimes you have to pay monthly on top of the year of service which is why people are complaining. Not only do you pay for internet access already but you also have to pay a yearly fee and a monthly fee. That adds up. I mean if Nintendo can provide free online play then why cant others?
 
But will the free online play be as good as XBL? XBL provides 24 hour support, free patches, universal friends list, universal (although odd) messanging and invitation system, plus lots of other things. Like leaderboards, clans, voice communication. I would say free downloads, but some cost to download, but the majority are 100% free.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top