Gamingforce Interactive Forums
85242 35212

Go Back   Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Entertainment > Video Gaming
Register FAQ GFWiki Community Donate Arcade ChocoJournal Calendar

Notices

Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis.
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).


[PS3] Playstation 3 games costing between $59 and $99?
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Soluzar
De Arimasu!


Member 1222

Level 37.11

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 28, 2006, 07:01 PM Local time: Jun 29, 2006, 01:01 AM #1 of 79
Originally Posted by Domino
Well. The price of the PS3 doesn't seem to be too bad.
I know that it is still a fair bit of money, but I was expecting it to be at least £100 more.
It will be at least a hundred quid more, going on experience of every console launch ever. The price in dollars won't simply be converted. There will be additional profit margins built in, same as always. It will end up, as Randomwab said, being the same number, but with a pound sign instead of a dollar sign. The console companies have all done this to us before, and they will again.

Jam it back in, in the dark.
Soluzar
De Arimasu!


Member 1222

Level 37.11

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2006, 08:13 AM Local time: Jun 29, 2006, 02:13 PM #2 of 79
Originally Posted by Shin
I paid £60 for Killer Instinct on the SNES back in 1996 which is about £90 or so by modern standards.
That's why my SNES game collection was a quarter the size of my collections from the PS1 onwards. I wouldn't want to return to those days, because it would mean that I'd only buy about 2 games a year, per system. Not because I only have that much money, but because I'm only willing to budget that much to gaming.

Quote:
That's about the same price as a gram and a half of coke and that would generally only last you a couple of hours...
I wouldn't know about coke, but sixty quid will get you at least a half-ounce of good skunk, and that would last me longer than most games... :-D

There's nowhere I can't reach.
Soluzar
De Arimasu!


Member 1222

Level 37.11

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2006, 08:21 AM Local time: Jun 29, 2006, 02:21 PM #3 of 79
Originally Posted by Kensaki
SNES games > PS1 games. I'd hit it.
I don't know about that at all. The very best SNES games are better than the very best PS1 games, in my opinion, but the average standard seems to be higher on the PS1.

Most amazing jew boots
Soluzar
De Arimasu!


Member 1222

Level 37.11

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2006, 08:29 AM Local time: Jun 29, 2006, 02:29 PM #4 of 79
Originally Posted by Kensaki
I actually disagree on that. I can pick out much more dung from the PS1 era than the SNES era. But perhaps that has something with me being less picky about my games then.
I'm very picky myself, and I was aware while writing that post that it was an oversimplification. Allow me to express my thoughts more clearly.

There is a greater volume of games for PS1 than for SNES overall, and it's true that there is a huge, honking great pile of horrdendous, pathetic, abysmal games for PS1. However, due to the greater size of the overall catalogue, this still means that there are more titles of a worthwhile nature than on the SNES, in my opinion. The quality bell-curve peaks a little lower on the PS1 than on the SNES, but the gems are there, if you want to look for them.

You're right, though. The average standard is not higher, it's just that with more games overall, the yield of quality titles can be good, even with a poor ratio of weak to strong titles. Some of the best titles for SNES never got translated into English, officially at least, so they were never really available to English-speaking gamers. I tend to not count those, no matter how good they were.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Soluzar
De Arimasu!


Member 1222

Level 37.11

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2006, 08:47 AM Local time: Jun 29, 2006, 02:47 PM #5 of 79
Originally Posted by Kensaki
True enough, but still I find the SNES liberary to be an surperior one in queslity than PS1. Only category that I say is just as good on PS1 and SNES is RPGs. While PS2 has been kind of a dissepointment in the RPG category with a few exceptions(modern RPG = interactive movie).
I really think you're not looking hard enough. I'd list some titles, but I don't know your taste. Bear in mind, though, that the PS1 was home to the first popular rhythm-action games, and dancemat games to be available for the home console. Of those two genres, only Vib-Ribbon really does anything for me, but they are well-regarded by many. It was also home to the first popular 3d fighting game, and some of the major driving games.

I'm not trying to convince you, not in any way. Your opinion is your own business, but I am saying that from an objective viewpoint, the PS1 has been home to some important titles. It's not as though I even scratched the surface.

I'm not going to talk about RPGs, because you are already convinced. One area in which in really loses to the SNES, though is platformers. There realyl weren't that many. I'm a big fan of platform games, and the lack of them on PS1 really annoyed me for a while. There were a couple of nice ones, just not enough.

I was speaking idiomatically.
Reply


Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Entertainment > Video Gaming > [PS3] Playstation 3 games costing between $59 and $99?

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.