Avinash_Tyagi said:
windbane said:
Cobretti said:
To be honest i still find nes and genesis games more fun then i do MOST new games simply because there is way to many check points and save points and when you die it reloads you at a check point instead of the start of a mission and conveneintly with ALL your weapons and stuff. Am i the only one who find that annoying? That kids these days don't have challenging enough games and it takes them litrally a few hours to finish. Somone above mentioned how load times are long on ps2 well guess what check out ps3 they about twice as long. One thing that i like with nintendo games since we steped into 3D is the way they make their load times so minimal and seemless. Just look at zelda TP (granted the game isn't visually that great or the game ain't hard as oldskool games) but the transition between areas is amazing which makes it a constantly flowing game and fun to play. All 3rd part developers should strive for such performance. Example of a game that pissed me off was red steel with its load times and stupid annoying check point. Does the game have to stop to make a damn check point especially in the middle of say someone shooting at you and your trying to move out of the way. I am sure you can make check points without having to freeze the game to do so. Another game is on my PSP raw v smackdown 5 fricken minutes to load all te crappy logos and shit before you can even like select players. So bloody annoying. To answer the question I do think graphics sell the game initially but if the game sucks gameplay wise people will stop playing it anyway. |
Mario can be beaten in less than 10 minutes if you are good enough. That's why it doesn't have save points. Games are longer now and more involved. No one wants to collect everything again in an RPG just because they die. But, I suppose you liked the new Ghosts and Goblins, or was it Ghouls...whatever that new one was. Memorize level after level to finish! Oh, to play Contra again...ugh. Load times are much better for the PS3. In fact, Motorstorm and Elder Scrolls would have much better load times if they used the hard drive. Ridge Racer certainly loaded faster because it installed data to the hard drive, and Ninja Scrolls will load much faster because it will have an option to install most of the game. Elder Scrolls loads faster than GTA games on the PS2, also. PSP games load much faster from the memory card. I agree with you about graphics and gameplay. |
How fast would loading all those games use up the Hard Drive though? (especially if one has the 20GB version)
|
Booted my PS3 up just to check out a few examples. Btw, booting the PS3 takes about 12 seconds from what I just timed it from right after I hit the button on the controller. Looks like Resistance takes up only 167MB. Load times were decent inbetween levels if I recall. I was wrong about Elder Scrolls, it installs 4.4GB it seems. That explains why the load times are better than the 360 and PC version (due to optimization over PC version I would imagine, but I've heard that to be the case). RR7's was optional (elder scrolls might be as well, I don't know since I don't remember being given an option), and it takes up close to 5GB. Load times were good without the install but faster with it, of course. So, you could install 3 games at a time and have plenty of room for game saves and some demos/music/photos/videos if you only have the 20GB version.
So far, on my 60GB version, I've used 26GB. That's including the above and every single free HD movie trailer and game demo from the Playstation Network and 120 elder scrolls game saves (heh). Oh, and I bought flOw and Cash Guns Chaos before I knew it was only 1-player (which is lame...it's a smash-tv kind of game). At some point Linux will be installed as well, and for those that don't know that's not a huge file like windows OSes.
So, less than 10GB for Motorstom, RR7, Elder Scrolls, and Resistance so far. You can always uninstall games as well. On the 60GB I don't see that happening for awhile.
