By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
johnlucas said:
RolStoppable said:

@johnlucas

If the definition of online includes both local area network and global area network then you are right, MKDD and 1080° were online games. Just not global.

Where I live online gaming means global and LAN does not mean online. At least to all people I know.

As a sidenote Sony established one big thing in gaming: the fact that people accepted and believed that long loading games in console games are necessary. Luckily they failed to do the same in the portable market.

People, don't take this sidenote too serious, although it's sort of true.

My biggest beef with Sony really is how they've lowered the bar for system design. That's what REALLY irritates me about them more than anything. I can't stand higher priced lower quality goods. I'm very glad the PS3 is better in durability (for that price it'd better be) but if that system still has long load times I'm like forget it. In the CD days that coulda been a forgivable excuse but not now. Especially not now. No gamesystem be it XBox 360, PS3, or Wii should have long load times anymore. That's a big no-no in my book. GC's Battalion Wars annoys me with that long yellow bar going across the screen on every scenario. That had BETTER be straightened out on BWii.

John Lucas


Indeed, online gaming means internet, not LAN. I'm pretty sure direct links were done for a long time but not many people gathered a bunch of consoles and TVs together to play with each other until Halo on the Xbox.  Which leads me to my quick recap:

Dreamcast was the first to include a modem with the system, PS2 was the next to include online gaming on a decent scale, the XBox 1 greatly expanded the online console market with Halo 2 (mainly), and the PS3 and Xbox 360 continue to expand it.  If you think that market wasn't there before, then why did so many people play online games on the PC?  Battle.net alone is probably still larger than xbox live, but the console market is growing and Nintendo has yet to be a part of it. 

*sigh*. No one liked loading times, but it was a consequence of improved games and having more space for FF and MGS. A lot of people preferred sports games on the N64 and GC because of load times. The load times have significantly improved on the PS3 because of the included hard drive.

Well, I've heard the load times for the 360 aren't fantastic because developers can count on everyone having a hard drive. Motorstorm could be faster on the PS3 but for some reason Sony did not include an install option to the hard drive. Anyway, every other game has had great load times that I've played. The console itself only takes a little over 10 seconds to start up.

Saying Sony has set the bar low for system design is just ridiculous and shows your vendetta against Sony. If anything their bar was set too high with the inclusion of blu-ray. Wireless, blu-ray, nice size hard drive (again, for quick load times), 7 SPES in addition to the main CPU, HDMI 1.3 (which not even the 360 Elite supports months after the PS3 launch), everything inside the box (unlike 360's power brick and optional wireless connector), bluetooth support for any keyboards, mice, and webcams, and so far very few hardware problems. I'd say that is FANTASTIC system design.