Menu
User Avatar Image

Monkey Island on PS3?

posted by Marscaleb on - last edited - Viewed by 3.3K users

I for one would like to see this game on the PS3.
I would like it on the PS3 more than I would for the PC or Wii.

But I am just one voice. What about the others here?

99 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @GozzoMan said: No. First example that came into my mind: really both immersive and destructible environment was more or less not possible on the PS2.


    Ever played Red Faction? One of my favourite PS2 games. You could blow up everything, and I mean everything. It still beats anything I've seen on PS3 and/or XBox so far.

    @GozzoMan said: And also "prettiness" could be part of a concept.


    Now you're contradicting yourself. You say graphics improvements aren't important, but game concepts are. And then you say that graphics improvements are a game concept.

  • @hansschmucker said: Ever played Red Faction? One of my favourite PS2 games. You could blow up everything, and I mean everything. It still beats anything I've seen on PS3 and/or XBox so far.

    I see. Would it be possible also on a PS1 or a Spectrum?

    Performance can be useful or needed to do something really worth, I'm sure you can come up with your own example.

    @hansschmucker said:
    Now you're contradicting yourself. You say graphics improvements aren't important, but game concepts are. And then you say that graphics improvements are a game concept.

    No, I said that graphics improvements are not necessarily a worth improvement.

  • @GozzoMan said: I see. Would it be possible also on a PS1 or a Spectrum?


    That's why I said PS2. I didn't say technology was unimportant (you said that), but we passed the point were technology needed to improve in order to allow for new game concepts on the PS2. There are no new concepts that require better technology on either the PS3 or the XBox360. It's mainly eyecandy now. Higher resolution, better textures, better shadows. The new console generation doesn't offer any new technology-based concepts and it very likely never will.

    @GozzoMan said: Performance can be useful or needed to do something really worth, I'm sure you can come up with your own example.


    Not really. Give me a good example of a game where the concept, just the concept, couldn't be done on XBox or PS2.

    @GozzoMan said: No, I said that graphics improvements are not necessarily a worth improvement.


    But they make selling the next generation of games easier, don't they?

  • @hansschmucker said: That's why I said PS2. I didn't say technology was unimportant (you said that),

    Mmmh... No, bear with me, I haven't at all.

    If I though technology wasn't important, I wouldn't be here debating the importance of easily allowing to fully exploit an hardware.

    @hansschmucker said:

    but we passed the point were technology needed to improve in order to allow for new game concepts on the PS2. There are no new concepts that require better technology on either the PS3 or the XBox360. It's mainly eyecandy now. Higher resolution, better textures, better shadows. The new console generation doesn't offer any new technology-based concepts and it very likely never will.

    Not really. Give me a good example of a game where the concept, just the concept, couldn't be done on XBox or PS2.

    I dont' need to.

    You stated that "we passed the point were technology needed to improve in order to allow for new game concepts on the PS2". It's a very strong statement, and contrary to the commonly held principle that discovers happen and new things different and better than things of the past are created each day.

    The burden of proof is yours.

    @hansschmucker said:
    But they make selling the next generation of games easier, don't they?

    So what?

    Easy of selling should not be your concern (if you're not a seller for a living, of course). Buying things good for you should be your concern.

  • @GozzoMan said: I dont' need to.

    You stated that "we passed the point were technology needed to improve in order to allow for new game concepts on the PS2". It's a very strong statement, and contrary to the commonly held principle that discovers happen and new things different and better than things of the past are created each day.

    The burden of proof is yours.


    How come? It was your statement that leaving room for graphical improvements for games of a later generation doesn't make sense. In any case I can't prove a negative. That's like asking me to prove that god doesn't exist. All I can prove is that right now there are no new concepts (that are based on new technology) on any of the next-gen platforms. Only the same old stuff that we've seen a thousand times before and yet next-gen is still selling.

  • @hansschmucker said: How come? It was your statement that leaving room for graphical improvements for games of a later generation doesn't make sense.

    No. My statement was that to try to force (or not allow) developers to not fully use an hardware that already is available doesn't make sense.

    Improvements are always welcome. That's why I want them now, if they are possible, and not "artificially rationed and held back from me".

    And if a company tries to shove that down my throat, I will never support them.

    @hansschmucker said: In any case I can't prove a negative. That's like asking me to prove that god doesn't exist.

    Exactly. That's why your argument doesn't stand at all.

  • @GozzoMan said: No. My statement was that to try to force (or not allow) developers to not fully use an hardware that already is available doesn't make sense.

    Improvements are always welcome. That's why I want them now, if they are possible, and not "artificially rationed and held back from me".


    But then there won't be any in the future of that platform. Limiting its lifespan.

    Is it just me or are we back to exactly where we started?

    @GozzoMan said: Exactly. That's why your argument doesn't stand at all.


    Let's just say that I disagree.

  • @hansschmucker said: But then there won't be any in the future of that platform. Limiting its lifespan.

    That's exactly what I'm challenging.

    There are many worth improvements -- or at least we can presume that someone will come up with some of them because, well, someone always did if there's the possibility and a fertile context! -- that can be done even while easily exploiting the hardware from day one.

    If developers are forced through hoops to use the hardware, resources are taken away from them to achieve that kind of improvement.

    Until the moment that some new concepts would not be feasible on that platform, and hence demand a more powerful one, that platform will live on... and be as good as it could be all the time through!

    @hansschmucker said: Let's just say that I disagree.

    Well, but of course, that wasn't meant as derogatory at all.

    The point was: See? You can't exclude that someone could come up with some new and worthy concept of that kind, if allowed the resources to!

  • You never can. But you can extrapolate from what has happened so far and what's happened so far doesn't support your claim that without increase in available resources (yes, by making it hard to use the full resources right from the start) there will be significant improvements for generation 2 games over generation 1 games.

    Edit: The problem is that yes, I'm seeing things a bit from a sales perspective. Both due to the fact that I actually am a programmer (although not a console programmer) and therefore generally on the "producing" side and also because I, as a user want to see continues improvement. Not "new console generation is out, now you can wait until the next one to get better games". Wouldn't that perspective bother you as well?

  • You know, GozzoMan is a Wii fanboy, you'll probably not change his mind.

Add Comment