Tron

Black Widow

Bump & Jump

Alternates:

Battle Zone

Asteroids

Centipede

Fun poll. For me GTA3 was like video gaming instantly changed, it was like nothing I'd ever played before. I kept thinking (& telling people) there's a whole little world going on in there for you to interact with. It was amazing!Next came Vice City & it got better (better stories, better play-ability, better atmosphere- fricken Ray Liota voicing the main character). And then there was San Andreas. Everything GTA3 & Vice City did, San Andreas improved upon. San Andreas is easily one the best video game experiences I have ever had, simply because of how good of a game it is. And it isn't even one on my most favorite games (overall gangland USA & thug lifestyle kinda bore me).

Between GTA & RE4,I have to say GTA (any of the games in the series)are better games. I have played all of them & I really like RE4 (considering buying a Wii just to play RE4 on it), but GTA is just better.

However I cannot vote in your poll because I haven't played any of the other games (never had an Xbox & don't play PC games). And I think it is a little foolish/naive to say something I have experienced is better than something I haven't experienced.

Hitman games, Time splitter games & Ace Combat games!

hmm i really had to think about this, and i probably dontr still fully understand your post but: why the special controllers? im sure this premise would be doable with two normal playstation controllers, it can be kind of done if you butcher one right now and extend the cords. i dont see much point though tbh. unless your absolutely hopeless at a game. i do however see a use in games where you are operating large machinery, for instance a big mech in lost planet. although i wouldnt want a whole game based on this idea. i probably didnt read your post right so just take thaplay_thegame

Because my PS3 died a couple monthes ago (red blinking light, 60gig, haven't fixed yet), I re-hooked PS2 to main TV & been playing PS2 games lately. Currently playing Red Faction (excellent older FPS game). RF specifically reminded me of this accessory idea & my opinion on solo versus coop gaming, both of which I've thought about for years. Played RF for about 1 hr with aim assist on & it wasn't very challenging/fun. Turned off aim assist & totally more hard/fun. In RF the left analog stick controls the characters body, & the right analog stick controls where the character looks/shoots (body movement control & look/shoot control completely separate analog sticks, a lot FPS are like this). I have always enjoyed FPS shooter games more with aim assist off(harder/more realistic, no cross hairs snapping to target & less like rail shooter). I have also always found it harder in FPS games to shoot in one direction while moving in a differnt direction (shoot a stationary or moving target while not standing still or running toward it, example: as game character X body is moving -not directly toward target Y & not simply strafing fire in general direction of target Y- game character X body movement causes game character Xs aim/look/cross hairs to move along with it, this movement causes the need to constantly adjust/modify game character Xs look/aim to remain on target Y, also this is made more complex if game character X is moving -in a direction not toward target Y- & target Y is not stationary or running into the line of fire of game character X). If two people were simultaneous controlling game character X, one in control of left analog & the other in control of right analog... one is running & the other is gunning. Could be very cool coop play offline or online (online would require mics).

Accessory Idea: Two console controllers that split-apart the functions of one console controller, so person A would control certain aspects of video game character X & person B would control other aspects of video game character X (primary application is two people controlling one video game character in a FPS: person A would control video game character X body movement/heals/weapon selection- the actions usually controlled by the left analog stick, the d-pads & the left shoulder buttons, & person B would control videogame character X vision/weapon cross-hairs/camera & primary action/firing weapon/opening doors/etc.- the actions usually controlled by the right analog stick, the circle/square/triangle/X button & right shoulder buttons. The two controllers would need to be "on-the-fly" programmable & reprogrammable to accommodate application with most/any games. The two controllers use would only be limited to the player's application of them (could be used offline/online, not only limited to FPS games- third peron too, wouldn't effect software of game- only way controller controls/interprets it & players approach to it, one version for PS1/PS2 games & one version for PS3 games, could have versions for other consoles too).

Why: This -two controller- accessory could make almost any single person video game experience a two player experience (re-experience the games you already enjoys olo in a totally new way with a friend). This -two controller- accessory could double the amount of players enjoying an online video game experience. This -two controller- accessory could exponentially increase the social/cooperative aspect of video game playing (constant communication, learning & anticipating another persons play style, non-social single player campaigns become social 2 player experience). This -two controller- accessory changes the way any game can be played (harder/easier, simultaneously bringing together 2 perspectives on playing a game together would create a new unique perspective to both players). When I look at my collection of great games (PS1/PS2/PS3) I think about how I want to share my experince of enjoying them with my friends/wife/kids. Today's video game culture (online/offline) seems to have gotten a bit away from the simple/brilliant enjoyment of playing a game with a friend- thinking back to Atari 2600 (new consoles don't even include 2 controllers, coop in most PS3/PS2/PS1 games seems tacked on, current online play is great but mostly lacks effective communication or cooperation to achieve shared goals, majority of current multi-player video game experiences are online & the people sharing the experience don't/won't ever really know each (never meet in-person, only share game experience from single dimension- their own perspective).

Let me know your feedback. I swear this wasn't a 420 idea, just something that's been lingering in my brain for 10 years or so- now it's out there.

Combat- Atari 2600. It was some time in the 70s (I was maybe 6 or 7), I snuck open my presents prior to Christmas morning, and I played my first video game. I was sitting on a cold cement basement floor, the TV was black/white, and I was dogfighting with twin jets and blasting my sisters tank thru walls. If I got caught I my parents probably would have returned the system and it might have been years before my next opportunity to play a video game. But that didn't happen, my parents never found out, and I played my first video game. EPIC.

Yes, dead. Ever since I can no longer tolerate the inconvenience of stopping at FLASHING FLASHING FLASHING RED street lights. Closing my eyes & gritting my teeth I plow thru busy thoroughfares. Haven't killed anyone yet, sigh. Trying to justify to self not fixing/replacing PS33333333333 by playing PS2 system/games.

I would consider GTA4 & FarCry2 both fun pick-up & play games. Because learning to play them is simple (not terribly complex-backstory or play/control & cutscenes are quick) and they are both composed of strings of missions/tasks that each take 25-45minutes to complete (in roughly 1/2 hr I have fun, experience a minor storyline arc, save my progress & get closer to understanding the entire journey of the main character). But the driving to & from these tasks might wear on you after awhile.

If you are looking for games requiring shorter spans of your time (in between saves) try Portal or Little Big Planet.

Hmmm, interesting post. Good points & questions. Don't let the idiot replies get ya down.

Non-HD games (PS2) don't look good on you new HDTV. This is not a problem with the console (you have PS3 & PS2) or the game. It is more than likely your new HDTV. Have you noticed a similar denegration of picture quality occuring between true HDTV signals/non-HDTV signals & HD PS3 games/non-HD PS2 games. HDTVs & your PS3 upscale the non-HD content. In general I do not think they do a good job of it, most upscaling looks soft/fuzzy to me. Non-HD material looks best on a non-HDTV. I first suggest playing your PS2 games on your PS2 with the use of a PS2 component video cable (maximizing the quality of the original hardware/software/signal quality; PS2 video quality with component cable is noticeably better than S-video or standard AV). I second suggest playing your PS2 games on your "old" non-HDTV (nobody sells them anymore, but you'd need a gun to part me from my 36" flat screen Sony CRT non-HDTV). If this doesn't work for you, sorry, new technology is new & different, in mostways better- not perfect. You could always purchase the new PS3 re-releases of GOW1 & 2, I believe they were reprogrammed in HD & got good reviews. I am not paying add'l $$$ for GOW 1 & 2 to look better (a rose is a rose).

Backward compatibilty on a future PS3 or a future PS2 that upscaled. The future upscaling PS2 would never happen & if it did it would never sell. Why... for people to buy it would need to be super-cheap (it still only makes old games look better). And for it to work well (better than your new HDTV) it would need to employ a yet to be invented upscaling process that works better than what is in existence today (new tech is never cheap). And lastly Sony would have to make $$$ on it (which they wouldn't). PLAY YOUR OLD GAMES ON YOUR OLD TV. Here's a slightly different thing to want, an adapter/converter that converts your old PS2 games & non-HDTV programming to 3-D (already exists, didn't sell well). Backwards compatibility on new PS3... I like your thinking. Why: because I have a ton of great PS1/PS2 games, because one of the strong selling points of Sony always was BC, because Sony is finally getting close to making $$$ on the actual console, because add'l systems on one TV requires add'l input jacks, & because there is a massive library of great PS2/PS1 games still available for cheap. Sony will not make a future PS3 BC because it is not in the best interest of SONY. Sony doesn't want us buying old cheaper PS2 games if we're willing to buy new expensive games. When Sony did make the BC PS3 it was too expensive & they lost more $$$ per system (selling systems, minimizing lost $$$ per system & maximizing $$$ profit on software is how Sony wins the console war; which includes still making & selling new standard slim PS2s & PS2 software).Sony wants me to need an add'l TV for multiple game systems- they make TVs too. Keep in mind Sony makes zip on any used PS1/PS2 hardware/software. More than likely used hardware/software probably does more harm than help to Sony. Why...more $$$ spent on used stuff is less $$$ going towards new stuff. And just because someone buys a used PS1 or PS2 does not mean they will ever buy a PS3 or PS4, the days of loyalty are over.

ORANGE BOX.