To Clarify: Why PS1 classics dont count

Not worth making a video on this. Here it is.

Ive always said Im counting 360 games not on ps3 and ps3 games not on 360.

The fundamental confusion is that people think PS1 classics are "PS3 games". They are actually "Games playable on PS3". If they were PS3 games, they would be re reviewed and put on the ps3 list on metacritic. This only proves my theory.

PS3 fanboys = PS1 classics are PS3 games

Review Industry/Sane people = PS1 classics are games playable on PS3, not specific PS3 games.

Same reason why XB originals arent re reviewed.........they are merely games playable on 360.

The PS1 classic of Castlevania isnt a PS3 game, merely a game playable on PS3. The XBLA version of the same game however has achievements, a 360 specific feature. This transforms it from mere game into a "360 game".

Mortal Kombat 2 for PSN is a PS3 game because it has added gameplay modes not present in the non-PS3 versions of Mortal Kombat 2.

_____________________________________

Get it? "PS3/360 game" isnt the same as a "game playable on 360/PS3".

The Metacritic list stands............PS3 is loosing by more then ONE HUNDRED A, AA, AAA games 70 and above

Yep.

I said this as well:

https://xboxrepublic.forumotion.com/the-console-war-f1/xbla-games-why-they-count-t5398.htm

At about 5:30 in your "I truly thought you were better then that" video you state that "If one game is not on the other it deserves a mention."

I understand your point in this topic but you did state that quote in your video. Neither side will ever be happy with the others opinion

Makes perfect sense, dont see how anyone could think differently...

You hit the nail on the head. Not sure what the confusion from Louie is about

Yeah, I dont get why PS3 fanboys think that PS1 games on PS3 are exclusive. Its PS1. 15 years ago.

NoelX2 wrote:

Yeah, I dont get why PS3 fanboys think that PS1 games on PS3 are exclusive. Its PS1. 15 years ago.

Who said anything about exclusive? If its on one console and not the other it should at least get a mention, as I gave reference to MLD's vid stating just that in a previoius post.

Also here is MLD's post in the owning PS3 fanboys topic about the same thing. Check out Point #2, section #2, last sentence. I'm not arguing either way but these words come from MLD himself.

https://xboxrepublic.forumotion.com/the-console-war-f1/the-golden-2-points-the-blueprint-to-own-any-ps3-fanboy-t3790.htm

I'd rather see discussion on what makes one console better than other instead of why certain games should or shouldn't count.

The inclusion of 'Achievements' in Castlevania makes it a 360 game? Either way that point is irrelevant because the whole list revolves around games been playable on one system but not the other. No offense MLD but that sounds a bit weak. Or did you just use a bad example?

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. wrote:

The inclusion of 'Achievements' in Castlevania makes it a 360 game? Either way that point is irrelevant because the whole list revolves around games been playable on one system but not the other. No offense MLD but that sounds a bit weak. Or did you just use a bad example?

It was the bad example. His point is that it needs some change to be seen as a 360 or PS3 game. In the worst case scenario, the change will just be achievements. But if they're re-reviewed and still gets a decent rating, that shows it's a worthy game of being on a system of this gen. Because standards change over time and if it can still get a good rating, then that shows that it counts in the A,AA and AAA thingy.

Mld doesn't mention backwards compatibility like Xbox games because unless they have nothing new they can't be compared or considered as a game of that system

Jossa81 wrote:

At about 5:30 in your "I truly thought you were better then that" video you state that "If one game is not on the other it deserves a mention."

I understand your point in this topic but you did state that quote in your video. Neither side will ever be happy with the others opinion

Yes, very true. But old games can't be competed with new games unless they are on par. And they can't be considered on par without an up-to-date review.

Plus, very few people buy old games. Lots of people buy new games. New games aren't necessarily better BUT they are usually of a better standard in quality (better graphics or framerate as an example) or quantity (more content and features).

Plus, what sounds better: "my system has Playstation One games!!!" or "my system has the best available console online marketplace with access to thousands of games including classics and also entirely new titles".

And another thing is price. I don't know how much psx classics cost if you download them from psn but people are less willing to spend much money on an old game if there's absolutely nothing new in it. If it's just an emulation and not a game designed specifically for the system, very few people are going to care about it.

demondragondude wrote:

Jossa81 wrote:

At about 5:30 in your "I truly thought you were better then that" video you state that "If one game is not on the other it deserves a mention."

I understand your point in this topic but you did state that quote in your video. Neither side will ever be happy with the others opinion

Yes, very true. But old games can't be competed with new games unless they are on par. And they can't be considered on par without an up-to-date review.

Plus, very few people buy old games. Lots of people buy new games. New games aren't necessarily better BUT they are usually of a better standard in quality (better graphics or framerate as an example) or quantity (more content and features).

Plus, what sounds better: "my system has Playstation One games!!!" or "my system has the best available console online marketplace with access to thousands of games including classics and also entirely new titles".

And another thing is price. I don't know how much psx classics cost if you download them from psn but people are less willing to spend much money on an old game if there's absolutely nothing new in it. If it's just an emulation and not a game designed specifically for the system, very few people are going to care about it.

I agree with you......but, MLD has said a number of times, in some fashion, that if it isn't on the other system it should count.

When did they ever count?

Yusuke Urameshi wrote:

When did they ever count?

What is they? Would help if you quoted somebody or stated what you were referring to.

Jossa81 wrote:

demondragondude wrote:

Jossa81 wrote:

At about 5:30 in your "I truly thought you were better then that" video you state that "If one game is not on the other it deserves a mention."

I understand your point in this topic but you did state that quote in your video. Neither side will ever be happy with the others opinion

Yes, very true. But old games can't be competed with new games unless they are on par. And they can't be considered on par without an up-to-date review.

Plus, very few people buy old games. Lots of people buy new games. New games aren't necessarily better BUT they are usually of a better standard in quality (better graphics or framerate as an example) or quantity (more content and features).

Plus, what sounds better: "my system has Playstation One games!!!" or "my system has the best available console online marketplace with access to thousands of games including classics and also entirely new titles".

And another thing is price. I don't know how much psx classics cost if you download them from psn but people are less willing to spend much money on an old game if there's absolutely nothing new in it. If it's just an emulation and not a game designed specifically for the system, very few people are going to care about it.

I agree with you......but, MLD has said a number of times, in some fashion, that if it isn't on the other system it should count.

Me meant in the context of pc games.

Any game if it's got an up to date review and it even says specifically on XBOX 360 or PS3 on Metacritic, Gamesrankings or any site like that, then it counts.
If it doesn't exist in the context of Xbox 360's or Ps3's librarys it shouldn't count. It counts as an existing thing you can get for the system but in the console war of the GAMES LIBRARY which Mld is comparing, you can't include them.

Include them as an advantage of ps3 in the general console war but this topic is about a specific aspect of the console war, the system with the most A,AA and AAA games.

demondragondude wrote:

Jossa81 wrote:

demondragondude wrote:

Jossa81 wrote:

At about 5:30 in your "I truly thought you were better then that" video you state that "If one game is not on the other it deserves a mention."

I understand your point in this topic but you did state that quote in your video. Neither side will ever be happy with the others opinion

Yes, very true. But old games can't be competed with new games unless they are on par. And they can't be considered on par without an up-to-date review.

Plus, very few people buy old games. Lots of people buy new games. New games aren't necessarily better BUT they are usually of a better standard in quality (better graphics or framerate as an example) or quantity (more content and features).

Plus, what sounds better: "my system has Playstation One games!!!" or "my system has the best available console online marketplace with access to thousands of games including classics and also entirely new titles".

And another thing is price. I don't know how much psx classics cost if you download them from psn but people are less willing to spend much money on an old game if there's absolutely nothing new in it. If it's just an emulation and not a game designed specifically for the system, very few people are going to care about it.

I agree with you......but, MLD has said a number of times, in some fashion, that if it isn't on the other system it should count.

Me meant in the context of pc games.

Any game if it's got an up to date review and it even says specifically on XBOX 360 or PS3 on Metacritic, Gamesrankings or any site like that, then it counts.
If it doesn't exist in the context of Xbox 360's or Ps3's librarys it shouldn't count. It counts as an existing thing you can get for the system but in the console war of the GAMES LIBRARY which Mld is comparing, you can't include them.

Include them as an advantage of ps3 in the general console war but this topic is about a specific aspect of the console war, the system with the most A,AA and AAA games.

3D.....I like arguing with you man. You seem like a smart guy and bring up good points, but let me ask you this, what do you consider a consoles library? All games available to play on a console, or all games available on a console specifically developed for it?

PS3 fanboys know they are losing now, so they'll use every dirty trick to say otherwise.

Its sad really.

Ozsem wrote:

PS3 fanboys know they are losing now, so they'll use every dirty trick to say otherwise.

Its sad really.

Yup. They try and convince themselves they aren't losing by doing stuff like this.

Jossa81 wrote:

At about 5:30 in your "I truly thought you were better then that" video you state that "If one game is not on the other it deserves a mention."

I understand your point in this topic but you did state that quote in your video. Neither side will ever be happy with the others opinion

true.............but my quote actually talks about 360/PS3 games, not games playable on them.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. wrote:

The inclusion of 'Achievements' in Castlevania makes it a 360 game? Either way that point is irrelevant because the whole list revolves around games been playable on one system but not the other. No offense MLD but that sounds a bit weak. Or did you just use a bad example?

that louie guy mentioned how the ps1 classic wasnt rereviewed but the XBLA version was.

it is a weak example, some XBLA games are merely ports with achievment support. But it still makes it a 360 game due to it now having 360 features.

Truth be told most XBLA ports have more then just achievement support, but in the end, it justifies a rereview, unlike PS1 classics.

Jossa81 wrote:

demondragondude wrote:

Jossa81 wrote:

At about 5:30 in your "I truly thought you were better then that" video you state that "If one game is not on the other it deserves a mention."

I understand your point in this topic but you did state that quote in your video. Neither side will ever be happy with the others opinion

Yes, very true. But old games can't be competed with new games unless they are on par. And they can't be considered on par without an up-to-date review.

Plus, very few people buy old games. Lots of people buy new games. New games aren't necessarily better BUT they are usually of a better standard in quality (better graphics or framerate as an example) or quantity (more content and features).

Plus, what sounds better: "my system has Playstation One games!!!" or "my system has the best available console online marketplace with access to thousands of games including classics and also entirely new titles".

And another thing is price. I don't know how much psx classics cost if you download them from psn but people are less willing to spend much money on an old game if there's absolutely nothing new in it. If it's just an emulation and not a game designed specifically for the system, very few people are going to care about it.

I agree with you......but, MLD has said a number of times, in some fashion, that if it isn't on the other system it should count.

im talking about PS3 and 360 games...............not games playable on them.

you seem to share that fundamental confusion, which is why i made this thread.

GeneralMLD wrote:

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. wrote:

The inclusion of 'Achievements' in Castlevania makes it a 360 game? Either way that point is irrelevant because the whole list revolves around games been playable on one system but not the other. No offense MLD but that sounds a bit weak. Or did you just use a bad example?

that louie guy mentioned how the ps1 classic wasnt rereviewed but the XBLA version was.

it is a weak example, some XBLA games are merely ports with achievment support. But it still makes it a 360 game due to it now having 360 features.

Truth be told most XBLA ports have more then just achievement support, but in the end, it justifies a rereview, unlike PS1 classics.

I see what you mean now about the game been re-reviewed for the 360 and the original was reviewed for the PSone (hence not a PS3 Game). The thing that was confusing me was how the inclusion of achievements could somehow alter Castlevania's game play and meta-score. But obviously you were just referring to what games are associated with which console when talking strictly PS3 and 360.