Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

PSx/PS!/PS@ Tomb Raider Versions

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 17, 2005 5:20:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.tombraider (More info?)

Does anyone here play TR any version 1-6, on the Playstation? While I
usually play mine on the PC, I am getting very tired of having to upgrade my
graphics card everytime a new game comes out (This is not just TR either).
The game companies seem to be able to make the new games work with the same
old game console, so why does every iteration of game need bigger, bolder,
faster, and MUCH more expensive PC graphics cards?? I always thought I
wanted to be able to cheat or save anytime I wanted, but the graphics card
upgrade problem is pushing me toward a console for games. ^_^

Inu-Yasha
Feh!!
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 17, 2005 5:44:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.tombraider (More info?)

"Inu-Yasha" <tjardine@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:HFbie.23980$VH2.20562@tornado.tampabay.rr.com
> Does anyone here play TR any version 1-6, on the Playstation? While I
> usually play mine on the PC, I am getting very tired of having to
> upgrade my graphics card everytime a new game comes out (This is not
> just TR either). The game companies seem to be able to make the new
> games work with the same old game console, so why does every
> iteration of game need bigger, bolder, faster, and MUCH more
> expensive PC graphics cards?? I always thought I wanted to be able
> to cheat or save anytime I wanted, but the graphics card upgrade
> problem is pushing me toward a console for games. ^_^
> Inu-Yasha
> Feh!!

If you have an XBox, then you have a modded GF3 GPU and dumbed down
graphics running in 800 scan lines max. You don't have to upgrade your
system every time a new game comes out. Modern games "scale" to
whatever the min specs are, and most do it very well. Doom3 and
Half-Life 2 are good examples of this. I'm an 'enthusiast' you could
say. I want to see everything there is and do everything I can in the
game, completely maxed out with *all* the goodies on and cranked up all
the way. That's what I like. Believe me, I spent many years playing
games in the "Min-Spec" arena. I made a choice, and as I can afford to,
I do get the stuff to push my rigs specs to handle the games I want to
play, the way I want to play them. Whether they can afford to or not;
many people don't care a whit about having every erg of eye candy on in
their games. They just want the game to play smoothly and be fun.
Until AoD, you didn't need a high spec rig to play and enjoy the
Tombraider games on. AoD was one of the first fully DX9 games out, and
that game offers *many* options for scaling it to smooth performance on
just about any rig within its specs. I'll give em this, Core got THAT
part right with AoD!
Basically, I feel there is no need to be upset about it. Happily, you
DO have the option of being able to play your games on a nice choice of
platforms! For the cost of my video card alone ($400), I could have
bought a complete console system and been set for all the games for a
good while. But for me, consoles do not offer what I want :)  Not even
close. SO... I bought another video card and another gigabyte of ram
for this rig. $600 there for the both. Way back when I had Family at
home, there is no way I'd have considered that at all. It's just me
now, and I don't have a problem with that. But you have to decide what
it will take for you to be happy.
McG.
May 17, 2005 5:51:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.tombraider (More info?)

I have played them ALL on PSX/PS2... I dunno what I'm missing I guess... lol

<eagerly awaiting TR Legends>

Dani



"McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> wrote in message
news:60cie.89935$hu5.58992@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> "Inu-Yasha" <tjardine@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:HFbie.23980$VH2.20562@tornado.tampabay.rr.com
>> Does anyone here play TR any version 1-6, on the Playstation? While I
>> usually play mine on the PC, I am getting very tired of having to
>> upgrade my graphics card everytime a new game comes out (This is not
>> just TR either). The game companies seem to be able to make the new
>> games work with the same old game console, so why does every
>> iteration of game need bigger, bolder, faster, and MUCH more
>> expensive PC graphics cards?? I always thought I wanted to be able
>> to cheat or save anytime I wanted, but the graphics card upgrade
>> problem is pushing me toward a console for games. ^_^
>> Inu-Yasha
>> Feh!!
>
> If you have an XBox, then you have a modded GF3 GPU and dumbed down
> graphics running in 800 scan lines max. You don't have to upgrade your
> system every time a new game comes out. Modern games "scale" to whatever
> the min specs are, and most do it very well. Doom3 and Half-Life 2 are
> good examples of this. I'm an 'enthusiast' you could say. I want to
> see everything there is and do everything I can in the game, completely
> maxed out with *all* the goodies on and cranked up all the way. That's
> what I like. Believe me, I spent many years playing games in the
> "Min-Spec" arena. I made a choice, and as I can afford to, I do get the
> stuff to push my rigs specs to handle the games I want to play, the way I
> want to play them. Whether they can afford to or not; many people don't
> care a whit about having every erg of eye candy on in their games. They
> just want the game to play smoothly and be fun. Until AoD, you didn't need
> a high spec rig to play and enjoy the Tombraider games on. AoD was one of
> the first fully DX9 games out, and that game offers *many* options for
> scaling it to smooth performance on just about any rig within its specs.
> I'll give em this, Core got THAT part right with AoD!
> Basically, I feel there is no need to be upset about it. Happily, you DO
> have the option of being able to play your games on a nice choice of
> platforms! For the cost of my video card alone ($400), I could have
> bought a complete console system and been set for all the games for a good
> while. But for me, consoles do not offer what I want :)  Not even close.
> SO... I bought another video card and another gigabyte of ram for this
> rig. $600 there for the both. Way back when I had Family at home, there
> is no way I'd have considered that at all. It's just me now, and I don't
> have a problem with that. But you have to decide what it will take for
> you to be happy.
> McG.
>
Related resources
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 17, 2005 7:05:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.tombraider (More info?)

In the dead of night, a faint whisper from Dani was heard, at about
05/16/2005 09:51 PM, and I could have sworn it said ...
> I have played them ALL on PSX/PS2... I dunno what I'm missing I guess... lol
>
> <eagerly awaiting TR Legends>
>
> Dani
>

Personally, I'd say you're missing nothing! (Sorry McG!)

I'd much rather play a well designed game in shitty graphics than a
badly designed one in DX9 technicolor!

For example, I recently (just for shits and giggles) got my old "CoCo"
out of moth balls and played an old "cave spelunking" game (I forget the
name) ... get this ... in 16 colors and 320x200 resolution.

I played for hours. It was *great* fun!

I would say that I had more fun in those few hours than in all the days
I spent with AoD (Fx5200 @ 1024x768 and 65M colors).

So pffffft to hi-res, high $ games ...

I want a *good* game! :) 

---
PW

P.S. For those too young to know a "CoCo" is a Radio Shack Color
Computer circa 1982 ( 0.47 KHz <iirc>... yes Kilo, not Mega ... 64 K ...
yes, K as in kilo ... of RAM ... and single-sided single density 5.25
floppy)

>
>
> "McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:60cie.89935$hu5.58992@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
>>"Inu-Yasha" <tjardine@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:HFbie.23980$VH2.20562@tornado.tampabay.rr.com
>>
>>>Does anyone here play TR any version 1-6, on the Playstation? While I
>>>usually play mine on the PC, I am getting very tired of having to
>>>upgrade my graphics card everytime a new game comes out (This is not
>>>just TR either). The game companies seem to be able to make the new
>>>games work with the same old game console, so why does every
>>>iteration of game need bigger, bolder, faster, and MUCH more
>>>expensive PC graphics cards?? I always thought I wanted to be able
>>>to cheat or save anytime I wanted, but the graphics card upgrade
>>>problem is pushing me toward a console for games. ^_^
>>> Inu-Yasha
>>> Feh!!
>>
>>If you have an XBox, then you have a modded GF3 GPU and dumbed down
>>graphics running in 800 scan lines max. You don't have to upgrade your
>>system every time a new game comes out. Modern games "scale" to whatever
>>the min specs are, and most do it very well. Doom3 and Half-Life 2 are
>>good examples of this. I'm an 'enthusiast' you could say. I want to
>>see everything there is and do everything I can in the game, completely
>>maxed out with *all* the goodies on and cranked up all the way. That's
>>what I like. Believe me, I spent many years playing games in the
>>"Min-Spec" arena. I made a choice, and as I can afford to, I do get the
>>stuff to push my rigs specs to handle the games I want to play, the way I
>>want to play them. Whether they can afford to or not; many people don't
>>care a whit about having every erg of eye candy on in their games. They
>>just want the game to play smoothly and be fun. Until AoD, you didn't need
>>a high spec rig to play and enjoy the Tombraider games on. AoD was one of
>>the first fully DX9 games out, and that game offers *many* options for
>>scaling it to smooth performance on just about any rig within its specs.
>>I'll give em this, Core got THAT part right with AoD!
>>Basically, I feel there is no need to be upset about it. Happily, you DO
>>have the option of being able to play your games on a nice choice of
>>platforms! For the cost of my video card alone ($400), I could have
>>bought a complete console system and been set for all the games for a good
>>while. But for me, consoles do not offer what I want :)  Not even close.
>>SO... I bought another video card and another gigabyte of ram for this
>>rig. $600 there for the both. Way back when I had Family at home, there
>>is no way I'd have considered that at all. It's just me now, and I don't
>>have a problem with that. But you have to decide what it will take for
>>you to be happy.
>>McG.
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 17, 2005 1:06:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.tombraider (More info?)

Pistol Whipped wrote:
>
> In the dead of night, a faint whisper from Dani was heard, at about
> 05/16/2005 09:51 PM, and I could have sworn it said ...
> > I have played them ALL on PSX/PS2... I dunno what I'm missing I guess... lol
> >
> > <eagerly awaiting TR Legends>
> >
> > Dani
> >
>
> Personally, I'd say you're missing nothing! (Sorry McG!)
>
> I'd much rather play a well designed game in shitty graphics than a
> badly designed one in DX9 technicolor!
>
> For example, I recently (just for shits and giggles) got my old "CoCo"
> out of moth balls and played an old "cave spelunking" game (I forget the
> name) ... get this ... in 16 colors and 320x200 resolution.
>
> I played for hours. It was *great* fun!
>
> I would say that I had more fun in those few hours than in all the days
> I spent with AoD (Fx5200 @ 1024x768 and 65M colors).
>
> So pffffft to hi-res, high $ games ...
>
> I want a *good* game! :) 
>
> ---
> PW

Yes indeed. The hi res, amazing effects etc. are all wonderful, but
that's not what makes a game good. And those things won't save a
bad game. But, add the whiz-bang stuff to a good game and you've
really got something. However, if you can only have one, there's no
contest--the game play must come first.

-- G

> P.S. For those too young to know a "CoCo" is a Radio Shack Color
> Computer circa 1982 ( 0.47 KHz <iirc>... yes Kilo, not Mega ... 64 K ...
> yes, K as in kilo ... of RAM ... and single-sided single density 5.25
> floppy)
>
> >
> >
> > "McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:60cie.89935$hu5.58992@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> >
> >>"Inu-Yasha" <tjardine@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> >>news:HFbie.23980$VH2.20562@tornado.tampabay.rr.com
> >>
> >>>Does anyone here play TR any version 1-6, on the Playstation? While I
> >>>usually play mine on the PC, I am getting very tired of having to
> >>>upgrade my graphics card everytime a new game comes out (This is not
> >>>just TR either). The game companies seem to be able to make the new
> >>>games work with the same old game console, so why does every
> >>>iteration of game need bigger, bolder, faster, and MUCH more
> >>>expensive PC graphics cards?? I always thought I wanted to be able
> >>>to cheat or save anytime I wanted, but the graphics card upgrade
> >>>problem is pushing me toward a console for games. ^_^
> >>> Inu-Yasha
> >>> Feh!!
> >>
> >>If you have an XBox, then you have a modded GF3 GPU and dumbed down
> >>graphics running in 800 scan lines max. You don't have to upgrade your
> >>system every time a new game comes out. Modern games "scale" to whatever
> >>the min specs are, and most do it very well. Doom3 and Half-Life 2 are
> >>good examples of this. I'm an 'enthusiast' you could say. I want to
> >>see everything there is and do everything I can in the game, completely
> >>maxed out with *all* the goodies on and cranked up all the way. That's
> >>what I like. Believe me, I spent many years playing games in the
> >>"Min-Spec" arena. I made a choice, and as I can afford to, I do get the
> >>stuff to push my rigs specs to handle the games I want to play, the way I
> >>want to play them. Whether they can afford to or not; many people don't
> >>care a whit about having every erg of eye candy on in their games. They
> >>just want the game to play smoothly and be fun. Until AoD, you didn't need
> >>a high spec rig to play and enjoy the Tombraider games on. AoD was one of
> >>the first fully DX9 games out, and that game offers *many* options for
> >>scaling it to smooth performance on just about any rig within its specs.
> >>I'll give em this, Core got THAT part right with AoD!
> >>Basically, I feel there is no need to be upset about it. Happily, you DO
> >>have the option of being able to play your games on a nice choice of
> >>platforms! For the cost of my video card alone ($400), I could have
> >>bought a complete console system and been set for all the games for a good
> >>while. But for me, consoles do not offer what I want :)  Not even close.
> >>SO... I bought another video card and another gigabyte of ram for this
> >>rig. $600 there for the both. Way back when I had Family at home, there
> >>is no way I'd have considered that at all. It's just me now, and I don't
> >>have a problem with that. But you have to decide what it will take for
> >>you to be happy.
> >>McG.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 17, 2005 6:45:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.tombraider (More info?)

Pistol Whipped wrote:
> In the dead of night, a faint whisper from Dani was heard, at about
> 05/16/2005 09:51 PM, and I could have sworn it said ...
>
>> I have played them ALL on PSX/PS2... I dunno what I'm missing I
>> guess... lol
>>
>> <eagerly awaiting TR Legends>
>>
>> Dani
>>
>
> Personally, I'd say you're missing nothing! (Sorry McG!)
>
> I'd much rather play a well designed game in shitty graphics than a
> badly designed one in DX9 technicolor!
>
> For example, I recently (just for shits and giggles) got my old "CoCo"
> out of moth balls and played an old "cave spelunking" game (I forget the
> name) ... get this ... in 16 colors and 320x200 resolution.
>
> I played for hours. It was *great* fun!
>
> I would say that I had more fun in those few hours than in all the days
> I spent with AoD (Fx5200 @ 1024x768 and 65M colors).

Just thought I'd point out that the nVidia GeForce FX5200 isn't a very
good or even expensive card, last I checked it was around £30. I use it
myself and I have to have it set to the "Fastest" settings to get it to
run smoothly, admittedly I do run it at 1280x1024 though...

-Chris

>
> So pffffft to hi-res, high $ games ...
>
> I want a *good* game! :) 
>
> ---
> PW
>
> P.S. For those too young to know a "CoCo" is a Radio Shack Color
> Computer circa 1982 ( 0.47 KHz <iirc>... yes Kilo, not Mega ... 64 K ...
> yes, K as in kilo ... of RAM ... and single-sided single density 5.25
> floppy)
>
>>
>>
>> "McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:60cie.89935$hu5.58992@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>>
>>> "Inu-Yasha" <tjardine@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:HFbie.23980$VH2.20562@tornado.tampabay.rr.com
>>>
>>>> Does anyone here play TR any version 1-6, on the Playstation? While I
>>>> usually play mine on the PC, I am getting very tired of having to
>>>> upgrade my graphics card everytime a new game comes out (This is not
>>>> just TR either). The game companies seem to be able to make the new
>>>> games work with the same old game console, so why does every
>>>> iteration of game need bigger, bolder, faster, and MUCH more
>>>> expensive PC graphics cards?? I always thought I wanted to be able
>>>> to cheat or save anytime I wanted, but the graphics card upgrade
>>>> problem is pushing me toward a console for games. ^_^
>>>> Inu-Yasha
>>>> Feh!!
>>>
>>>
>>> If you have an XBox, then you have a modded GF3 GPU and dumbed down
>>> graphics running in 800 scan lines max. You don't have to upgrade
>>> your system every time a new game comes out. Modern games "scale" to
>>> whatever the min specs are, and most do it very well. Doom3 and
>>> Half-Life 2 are good examples of this. I'm an 'enthusiast' you
>>> could say. I want to see everything there is and do everything I can
>>> in the game, completely maxed out with *all* the goodies on and
>>> cranked up all the way. That's what I like. Believe me, I spent
>>> many years playing games in the "Min-Spec" arena. I made a choice,
>>> and as I can afford to, I do get the stuff to push my rigs specs to
>>> handle the games I want to play, the way I want to play them.
>>> Whether they can afford to or not; many people don't care a whit
>>> about having every erg of eye candy on in their games. They just
>>> want the game to play smoothly and be fun. Until AoD, you didn't need
>>> a high spec rig to play and enjoy the Tombraider games on. AoD was
>>> one of the first fully DX9 games out, and that game offers *many*
>>> options for scaling it to smooth performance on just about any rig
>>> within its specs. I'll give em this, Core got THAT part right with AoD!
>>> Basically, I feel there is no need to be upset about it. Happily,
>>> you DO have the option of being able to play your games on a nice
>>> choice of platforms! For the cost of my video card alone ($400), I
>>> could have bought a complete console system and been set for all the
>>> games for a good while. But for me, consoles do not offer what I
>>> want :)  Not even close. SO... I bought another video card and
>>> another gigabyte of ram for this rig. $600 there for the both. Way
>>> back when I had Family at home, there is no way I'd have considered
>>> that at all. It's just me now, and I don't have a problem with
>>> that. But you have to decide what it will take for you to be happy.
>>> McG.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 17, 2005 8:17:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.tombraider (More info?)

"Pistol Whipped" <pwhipped@NOtampabaySPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jcdie.24007$VH2.15268@tornado.tampabay.rr.com
> In the dead of night, a faint whisper from Dani was heard, at about
> 05/16/2005 09:51 PM, and I could have sworn it said ...
>> I have played them ALL on PSX/PS2... I dunno what I'm missing I
>> guess... lol <eagerly awaiting TR Legends>
>>
>> Dani
>>
>
> Personally, I'd say you're missing nothing! (Sorry McG!)

No need to apologise! I do understand!

>
> I'd much rather play a well designed game in shitty graphics than a
> badly designed one in DX9 technicolor!

Well, I do play a number of games, not all are badly designed.
>
> For example, I recently (just for shits and giggles) got my old "CoCo"
> out of moth balls and played an old "cave spelunking" game (I forget
> the name) ... get this ... in 16 colors and 320x200 resolution.
>
> I played for hours. It was *great* fun!
>
> I would say that I had more fun in those few hours than in all the
> days I spent with AoD (Fx5200 @ 1024x768 and 65M colors).
>
> So pffffft to hi-res, high $ games ...

Nah, just make em scale well!

>
> I want a *good* game! :) 

Me too! I just wish someone would finish AoD right! But looks like
that's gone the way of porting TR1 to windows....
>
> ---
> PW
>
> P.S. For those too young to know a "CoCo" is a Radio Shack Color
> Computer circa 1982 ( 0.47 KHz <iirc>... yes Kilo, not Mega ... 64 K
> ... yes, K as in kilo ... of RAM ... and single-sided single density
> 5.25 floppy)

Sigh... the very first successful modem connection I ever made was from
a Tandy 1000a with a Tandy infernal modem...oops, internal... 300 baud.
Tandy codes, no *AT command set yet. Connected to a local CoCo BBS
named The Coco Loco. That BBS was all 7 bit ASCII. Finally one of the
guys gave me a little info I snapped to, and saw what the settings 7 E 1
meant. Instant connection with English, not heiroglyphics on the screen
:)  Those folks even came by the house to help out. They knew their
stuff, I was just learning. But I'll never sneer at the 'Trash 80's' or
the CoCo's. I've seen what determined people can do with them :) 
Oh, I don't even have a modem any more. Well, cable modem :) 

snippage...
McG.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 17, 2005 8:18:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.tombraider (More info?)

"Gary Mitchell" <wb6yru@ix.nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:4289B4A6.F994455C@ix.nospam.netcom.com
> Pistol Whipped wrote:
>>
>> In the dead of night, a faint whisper from Dani was heard, at about
>> 05/16/2005 09:51 PM, and I could have sworn it said ...
>>> I have played them ALL on PSX/PS2... I dunno what I'm missing I
>>> guess... lol
>>>
>>> <eagerly awaiting TR Legends>
>>>
>>> Dani
>>>
>>
>> Personally, I'd say you're missing nothing! (Sorry McG!)
>>
>> I'd much rather play a well designed game in shitty graphics than a
>> badly designed one in DX9 technicolor!
>>
>> For example, I recently (just for shits and giggles) got my old
>> "CoCo" out of moth balls and played an old "cave spelunking" game (I
>> forget the name) ... get this ... in 16 colors and 320x200
>> resolution.
>>
>> I played for hours. It was *great* fun!
>>
>> I would say that I had more fun in those few hours than in all the
>> days I spent with AoD (Fx5200 @ 1024x768 and 65M colors).
>>
>> So pffffft to hi-res, high $ games ...
>>
>> I want a *good* game! :) 
>>
>> ---
>> PW
>
> Yes indeed. The hi res, amazing effects etc. are all wonderful, but
> that's not what makes a game good. And those things won't save a
> bad game. But, add the whiz-bang stuff to a good game and you've
> really got something. However, if you can only have one, there's no
> contest--the game play must come first.

I whole heartedly agree with that Gary!
McG.

snippage
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 18, 2005 1:06:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.tombraider (More info?)

"Inu-Yasha" <tjardine@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:HFbie.23980$VH2.20562@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Does anyone here play TR any version 1-6, on the Playstation? While I
> usually play mine on the PC, I am getting very tired of having to upgrade
my
> graphics card everytime a new game comes out (This is not just TR either).
> The game companies seem to be able to make the new games work with the
same
> old game console, so why does every iteration of game need bigger, bolder,
> faster, and MUCH more expensive PC graphics cards?? I always thought I
> wanted to be able to cheat or save anytime I wanted, but the graphics card
> upgrade problem is pushing me toward a console for games. ^_^
>
> Inu-Yasha
> Feh!!
>
>

You'll get lots of replies, I'm sure.

But consider this...see if you can find screenshots of TR2-5 played on the
PS1.

TR6 is the only game that was designed for the PS2.

TR5 on PS1 looks horrendous.

Yet on PCs it's beautiful.

It always comes down to preference. I have an Xbox, PC, Gamecube and PS2 and
I'll prob buy an Xbox 360 as soon as it comes out, and a PS3 after the new
year reduction in price.

Sometime later next year or early 2007 I'll probably splurge and buy a new
graphics card for my PC.

Some things to remember and influence your decision between PC and consoles:

Consoles have controllers, which are generally easier to use. Conversely,
they have less buttons and will require more button combinations, which can
be annoying and difficult to learn/ execute.

A console game will work. Simple as that. You have the satisfaction knowing
that you buy a game, go home, pop it in and bam you're playing the game. On
a pc you have to install, invariably patch, fiddle around, get the settings
work and maybe set up keys the way you want. Conversely, a console can't be
patched (usually).

The constant upgrading of vid cards mean you can spend lots of money all the
time and always have supera dupera graphics (like TR2-5). On a console,
you're stuck with the original developers hardware.

Consider a new console (like the 360 and PS3) will cost about twice a decent
graphics card. But a new console will last at least as long as upgrading
your vid card twive - even as many as three times.

It really comes down to preference, budget and ease of use.

I love my computer, but my consoles are easier and more relaxing to use -- I
play them in bed, with my big tv and the existing 5.1 ch surround system i
bought for said tv.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 18, 2005 1:06:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.tombraider (More info?)

"Dragoncarer" <woops@no.sorry> wrote in message
news:4289d037$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au
> "Inu-Yasha" <tjardine@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:HFbie.23980$VH2.20562@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> Does anyone here play TR any version 1-6, on the Playstation? While
>> I usually play mine on the PC, I am getting very tired of having to
>> upgrade my graphics card everytime a new game comes out (This is not
>> just TR either). The game companies seem to be able to make the new
>> games work with the same old game console, so why does every
>> iteration of game need bigger, bolder, faster, and MUCH more
>> expensive PC graphics cards?? I always thought I wanted to be able
>> to cheat or save anytime I wanted, but the graphics card upgrade
>> problem is pushing me toward a console for games. ^_^
>>
>> Inu-Yasha
>> Feh!!
>>
>>
>
> You'll get lots of replies, I'm sure.
>
> But consider this...see if you can find screenshots of TR2-5 played
> on the PS1.
>
> TR6 is the only game that was designed for the PS2.
>
> TR5 on PS1 looks horrendous.
>
> Yet on PCs it's beautiful.
>
> It always comes down to preference. I have an Xbox, PC, Gamecube and
> PS2 and I'll prob buy an Xbox 360 as soon as it comes out, and a PS3
> after the new year reduction in price.
>
> Sometime later next year or early 2007 I'll probably splurge and buy
> a new graphics card for my PC.
>
> Some things to remember and influence your decision between PC and
> consoles:
>
> Consoles have controllers, which are generally easier to use.
> Conversely, they have less buttons and will require more button
> combinations, which can be annoying and difficult to learn/ execute.
>
> A console game will work. Simple as that. You have the satisfaction
> knowing that you buy a game, go home, pop it in and bam you're
> playing the game. On a pc you have to install, invariably patch,

watch it! I realize I'm being pedantic here... BUT ... 'invariably' is
incorrect!
TR2 has no patch. The only patches for TR1 were updated TOMB.EXE files
for 5 different video card chipsets to run the game in accelerated 3D.
American McGee's ALICE has no patch. Interplays Descent has no patch.
There are others aplenty. So, that MOST games end up needing patches
would be correct ;) 
McG.

> fiddle around, get the settings work and maybe set up keys the way
> you want. Conversely, a console can't be patched (usually).
>
> The constant upgrading of vid cards mean you can spend lots of money
> all the time and always have supera dupera graphics (like TR2-5). On
> a console, you're stuck with the original developers hardware.
>
> Consider a new console (like the 360 and PS3) will cost about twice a
> decent graphics card. But a new console will last at least as long as
> upgrading your vid card twive - even as many as three times.
>
> It really comes down to preference, budget and ease of use.
>
> I love my computer, but my consoles are easier and more relaxing to
> use -- I play them in bed, with my big tv and the existing 5.1 ch
> surround system i bought for said tv.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 18, 2005 5:14:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.tombraider (More info?)

"Pistol Whipped" <pwhipped@NOtampabaySPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jcdie.24007$VH2.15268@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> In the dead of night, a faint whisper from Dani was heard, at about
> 05/16/2005 09:51 PM, and I could have sworn it said ...
>> I have played them ALL on PSX/PS2... I dunno what I'm missing I guess...
>> lol
>>
>> <eagerly awaiting TR Legends>
>>
>> Dani
>>
>
> Personally, I'd say you're missing nothing! (Sorry McG!)
>
> I'd much rather play a well designed game in shitty graphics than a badly
> designed one in DX9 technicolor!
>
> For example, I recently (just for shits and giggles) got my old "CoCo" out
> of moth balls and played an old "cave spelunking" game (I forget the name)
> ... get this ... in 16 colors and 320x200 resolution.
>
> I played for hours. It was *great* fun!
>
> I would say that I had more fun in those few hours than in all the days I
> spent with AoD (Fx5200 @ 1024x768 and 65M colors).
>
> So pffffft to hi-res, high $ games ...
>
> I want a *good* game! :) 
>
> ---
> PW
>
> P.S. For those too young to know a "CoCo" is a Radio Shack Color Computer
> circa 1982 ( 0.47 KHz <iirc>... yes Kilo, not Mega ... 64 K ... yes, K as
> in kilo ... of RAM ... and single-sided single density 5.25 floppy)
>

Ah, now I recognize the term, Radio Shacks Color computer never caught on
very big, guess because the Apple II had color and a big program/game base.
I can remember playeing Big 5 arcade style games (Lunar Lander, Defender,
Meteor strike [or something like that]) on my old TRS-80 Md III with 48K mem
a green screen, and 2 306K doble sided full height floppy disk drives.
Started out as a 16K mem w/o floppy's, using a casette player to load Scott
Adams text games. Now I have 2 HP P4's, one a 1.3GHz and the other a 3.2
GHz processor. w/256Mb and 1GB mem respectively, have 4 harddrives in teh
slow one w/650GB storage while the fast one has a 250Gb serial ATA drive.
My graphics card in the slo one is an AGP FX 5200 NVida card w/128 Mb of mem
while my fast one has a built in Intel graphics acc 900 w/128Mb shared mem
(Yuk, vbut only way I could afford an faster PC). And guess what, I have
problems with many new and not so new games, esp. those that support only
Nvida and Radon chip sets. 0_0

InuYasha
Feh!!
>>
>>
>> "McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:60cie.89935$hu5.58992@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>>
>>>"Inu-Yasha" <tjardine@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>news:HFbie.23980$VH2.20562@tornado.tampabay.rr.com
>>>
>>>>Does anyone here play TR any version 1-6, on the Playstation? While I
>>>>usually play mine on the PC, I am getting very tired of having to
>>>>upgrade my graphics card everytime a new game comes out (This is not
>>>>just TR either). The game companies seem to be able to make the new
>>>>games work with the same old game console, so why does every
>>>>iteration of game need bigger, bolder, faster, and MUCH more
>>>>expensive PC graphics cards?? I always thought I wanted to be able
>>>>to cheat or save anytime I wanted, but the graphics card upgrade
>>>>problem is pushing me toward a console for games. ^_^
>>>> Inu-Yasha
>>>> Feh!!
>>>
>>>If you have an XBox, then you have a modded GF3 GPU and dumbed down
>>>graphics running in 800 scan lines max. You don't have to upgrade your
>>>system every time a new game comes out. Modern games "scale" to whatever
>>>the min specs are, and most do it very well. Doom3 and Half-Life 2 are
>>>good examples of this. I'm an 'enthusiast' you could say. I want to
>>>see everything there is and do everything I can in the game, completely
>>>maxed out with *all* the goodies on and cranked up all the way. That's
>>>what I like. Believe me, I spent many years playing games in the
>>>"Min-Spec" arena. I made a choice, and as I can afford to, I do get the
>>>stuff to push my rigs specs to handle the games I want to play, the way I
>>>want to play them. Whether they can afford to or not; many people don't
>>>care a whit about having every erg of eye candy on in their games. They
>>>just want the game to play smoothly and be fun. Until AoD, you didn't
>>>need a high spec rig to play and enjoy the Tombraider games on. AoD was
>>>one of the first fully DX9 games out, and that game offers *many* options
>>>for scaling it to smooth performance on just about any rig within its
>>>specs. I'll give em this, Core got THAT part right with AoD!
>>>Basically, I feel there is no need to be upset about it. Happily, you DO
>>>have the option of being able to play your games on a nice choice of
>>>platforms! For the cost of my video card alone ($400), I could have
>>>bought a complete console system and been set for all the games for a
>>>good while. But for me, consoles do not offer what I want :)  Not even
>>>close. SO... I bought another video card and another gigabyte of ram for
>>>this rig. $600 there for the both. Way back when I had Family at home,
>>>there is no way I'd have considered that at all. It's just me now, and I
>>>don't have a problem with that. But you have to decide what it will
>>>take for you to be happy.
>>>McG.
>>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 18, 2005 11:18:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.tombraider (More info?)

In the dead of night, a faint whisper from McGrandpa was heard, at
about 05/17/2005 12:17 PM, and I could have sworn it said ...
> "Pistol Whipped" <pwhipped@NOtampabaySPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:jcdie.24007$VH2.15268@tornado.tampabay.rr.com
>
<snip>
>>---
>>PW
>>
>>P.S. For those too young to know a "CoCo" is a Radio Shack Color
>>Computer circa 1982 ( 0.47 KHz <iirc>... yes Kilo, not Mega ... 64 K
>>... yes, K as in kilo ... of RAM ... and single-sided single density
>>5.25 floppy)
>
>
> Sigh... the very first successful modem connection I ever made was from
> a Tandy 1000a with a Tandy infernal modem...oops, internal... 300 baud.
> Tandy codes, no *AT command set yet. Connected to a local CoCo BBS
> named The Coco Loco. That BBS was all 7 bit ASCII. Finally one of the
> guys gave me a little info I snapped to, and saw what the settings 7 E 1
> meant. Instant connection with English, not heiroglyphics on the screen
> :)  Those folks even came by the house to help out. They knew their
> stuff, I was just learning. But I'll never sneer at the 'Trash 80's' or
> the CoCo's. I've seen what determined people can do with them :) 
> Oh, I don't even have a modem any more. Well, cable modem :) 
>
> snippage...
> McG.
>
>

Got ya beat there (haha finally for once!). My first modem was an audio
coupler ... remember those? Pick up the phone and dial (and I *mean*
dial) the number, wait for the right sounds, press the handset into the
coupler ... and away you go ... at all of 150 baud.

I was so good with that modem that I could listen to the data and tell
you if there was a problem ... hehehe ... just joking ... *almost*.

But I did write a vt100 terminal emulator working at 320x200 resolution
with a carefully hand-crafted font that got me 64 chars wide and 25
lines (5x8 dots using 4x7 dots for the chars) ... just so I could write
a decent LISP program that didn't wrap all over the screen ... from the
comfort of my living room! Talk about DIY!

Yes, I too trashed my internal modem last year ... nothing but a case
heater ... and an extra vulnerability to surges I don't need!

---
PW
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 18, 2005 7:47:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.tombraider (More info?)

"Pistol Whipped" <pwhipped@NOtampabaySPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:o %Bie.27119$VH2.11990@tornado.tampabay.rr.com
> In the dead of night, a faint whisper from McGrandpa was heard, at
> about 05/17/2005 12:17 PM, and I could have sworn it said ...
>> "Pistol Whipped" <pwhipped@NOtampabaySPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:jcdie.24007$VH2.15268@tornado.tampabay.rr.com
>>
> <snip>
>>> ---
>>> PW
>>>
>>> P.S. For those too young to know a "CoCo" is a Radio Shack Color
>>> Computer circa 1982 ( 0.47 KHz <iirc>... yes Kilo, not Mega ... 64 K
>>> ... yes, K as in kilo ... of RAM ... and single-sided single density
>>> 5.25 floppy)
>>
>>
>> Sigh... the very first successful modem connection I ever made was
>> from a Tandy 1000a with a Tandy infernal modem...oops, internal...
>> 300 baud. Tandy codes, no *AT command set yet. Connected to a local
>> CoCo BBS named The Coco Loco. That BBS was all 7 bit ASCII. Finally
>> one of the guys gave me a little info I snapped to, and saw
>> what the settings 7 E 1 meant. Instant connection with English, not
>> heiroglyphics on the screen :)  Those folks even came by the house
>> to help out. They knew their stuff, I was just learning. But I'll
>> never sneer at the 'Trash 80's' or the CoCo's. I've seen what
>> determined people can do with them :)  Oh, I don't even have a modem
>> any more. Well, cable modem :) 
>>
>> snippage...
>> McG.
>>
>>
>
> Got ya beat there (haha finally for once!). My first modem was an
> audio coupler ... remember those? Pick up the phone and dial (and I
> *mean* dial) the number, wait for the right sounds, press the handset
> into the coupler ... and away you go ... at all of 150 baud.

OH yes, I remember those! They erm... predated...my usage, like your
age is slipping PW! LOL We had those at work and the one guy that
figured out how to get it to connect with the head office was considered
a complete computer guru...for that one thing :) 
No, it wasn't me! Like I said, my FIRST was the 300 baud infernal Tandy
;) 

>
> I was so good with that modem that I could listen to the data and tell
> you if there was a problem ... hehehe ... just joking ... *almost*.
>
> But I did write a vt100 terminal emulator working at 320x200
> resolution with a carefully hand-crafted font that got me 64 chars
> wide and 25 lines (5x8 dots using 4x7 dots for the chars) ... just
> so I could write a decent LISP program that didn't wrap all over the
> screen ... from the comfort of my living room! Talk about DIY!

Well if you hadn't done it for yourself, you wouldn't have had it.
Wasn't much "out there" cause there wasn't much OF an "out there" back
when :) 

>
> Yes, I too trashed my internal modem last year ... nothing but a case
> heater ... and an extra vulnerability to surges I don't need!

Case heater? heh, try one of the new Intel dual core CPU's coming out
now :)  If you run a pair of graphics cards in SLI with that CPU, you'd
have to have 2 seperate power suppies! And the puter would need a
dedicated 20A outlet :o |
I've decided to try AMD again. I want to get an AMD 64 4200 X2 dual
core and PCI-E mobo. :)  Later...cuz that ones gonna be a pricey
upgrade!
McG.
>
> ---
> PW
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 18, 2005 11:05:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.tombraider (More info?)

In article <jiJie.95590$hu5.5753@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
"McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> wrote:


> BUT...what you CoCo nuts did WITH your puters was fun! Actually, while
> the CoCo was in its heyday, I couldn't afford more than the little Timex
> or AtariXL.

You could do quite a bit with an Atari XL :-)... My freshman year in
College... I used Paperclip (a word processor that had features that
Word didn't have until 15 years later) on a 48K Atari 600XL (w/a 32K
upgrade card)

Those were the days...

> As long as *you're* happy with what you have, then it's all good :) 
> McG.

Yup... games on my PS2/PSP, Internet "stuff" and word processing on my
iBook, Visual Studio (work stuff) on my Thinkpad... heavy duty db/
computing on the local OpenVMS Alpha cluster... Linux on my PDA...

It's a complicated computing world now... and I would want it any other
way

-Andy-
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 19, 2005 3:58:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.tombraider (More info?)

"-Andy-" <see2go4me@spamworm.yahoop.calm> wrote in message
news:see2go4me-ECE14E.19052618052005@news.giganews.com
> In article <jiJie.95590$hu5.5753@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
> "McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> BUT...what you CoCo nuts did WITH your puters was fun! Actually,
>> while the CoCo was in its heyday, I couldn't afford more than the
>> little Timex or AtariXL.
>
> You could do quite a bit with an Atari XL :-)... My freshman year in
> College... I used Paperclip (a word processor that had features that
> Word didn't have until 15 years later) on a 48K Atari 600XL (w/a 32K
> upgrade card)

I had an 800XL twice, and it was fun to play with. I finally got one of
those floppy drives for it. Sure made things faster and easier than
that darn cassette loader. A while back, I got to missing the little
guy, so I found an Atari XL Emulator. Dug up an ancient program listing
for this color/sound dancing line algorithm, typed it in and it ran.
Ahh good ol BlueScreen Atari Basic :) 
It's good to actually *USE* some of that stuff occasionally, really.
It can jog the ol memory cells. Recalling for instance the frustration
of not having enough and wanting so much more, longing for real graphics
and 3D and all that :o )
So, it's good to run the XL in its little postage stamp size window at
its full resolution, and watch it just poke along, doing its little
thing :) 
McG.

>
> Those were the days...
>
>> As long as *you're* happy with what you have, then it's all good :) 
>> McG.
>
> Yup... games on my PS2/PSP, Internet "stuff" and word processing on my
> iBook, Visual Studio (work stuff) on my Thinkpad... heavy duty db/
> computing on the local OpenVMS Alpha cluster... Linux on my PDA...
>
> It's a complicated computing world now... and I would want it any
> other way
>
> -Andy-

Amen brother! :) 
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 19, 2005 4:57:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.tombraider (More info?)

While taking a short break from the daily grind of enslavement and
world domination, Pistol Whipped mentioned

(snippages)

>>
>> Sigh... the very first successful modem connection I ever made was from
>> a Tandy 1000a with a Tandy infernal modem...oops, internal... 300 baud.
>> Tandy codes, no *AT command set yet. Connected to a local CoCo BBS
>> named The Coco Loco. That BBS was all 7 bit ASCII. Finally one of the
>> guys gave me a little info I snapped to, and saw what the settings 7 E 1
>> meant. Instant connection with English, not heiroglyphics on the screen
>> :)  Those folks even came by the house to help out. They knew their
>> stuff, I was just learning. But I'll never sneer at the 'Trash 80's' or
>> the CoCo's. I've seen what determined people can do with them :) 
>> Oh, I don't even have a modem any more. Well, cable modem :) 
>>
>> snippage...
>> McG.
>>
>>
>
>Got ya beat there (haha finally for once!). My first modem was an audio
>coupler ... remember those? Pick up the phone and dial (and I *mean*
>dial) the number, wait for the right sounds, press the handset into the
>coupler ... and away you go ... at all of 150 baud.
>
We used those at work when we were deciding whether "to use computers
for administrative purposes" (remember when the question was
undecided). We actually went "top o' the line" with a genyoowine IBM
PC (we already had System 38s and the power wanted us to stay a Big
Blue Shop).

The acoustic couplers disconnected whenever anybody in the office
coughed or when a larger truck went past outside - couldn't handle the
transient noises.

>I was so good with that modem that I could listen to the data and tell
>you if there was a problem ... hehehe ... just joking ... *almost*.
>
>But I did write a vt100 terminal emulator working at 320x200 resolution
>with a carefully hand-crafted font that got me 64 chars wide and 25
>lines (5x8 dots using 4x7 dots for the chars) ... just so I could write
>a decent LISP program that didn't wrap all over the screen ... from the
>comfort of my living room! Talk about DIY!
>
>Yes, I too trashed my internal modem last year ... nothing but a case
>heater ... and an extra vulnerability to surges I don't need!
>
>---
>PW

..
..
"When in danger or in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout"
..
It's not just a management tool,
It's a philosophy for living!!
..
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 19, 2005 12:34:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.tombraider (More info?)

"McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p Woie.93766$hu5.82621@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> "Dragoncarer" <woops@no.sorry> wrote in message
> news:4289d037$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au
> > "Inu-Yasha" <tjardine@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:HFbie.23980$VH2.20562@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> >> Does anyone here play TR any version 1-6, on the Playstation? While
<snip>
> >
> > A console game will work. Simple as that. You have the satisfaction
> > knowing that you buy a game, go home, pop it in and bam you're
> > playing the game. On a pc you have to install, invariably patch,
>
> watch it! I realize I'm being pedantic here... BUT ... 'invariably' is
> incorrect!
> TR2 has no patch. The only patches for TR1 were updated TOMB.EXE files
> for 5 different video card chipsets to run the game in accelerated 3D.
> American McGee's ALICE has no patch. Interplays Descent has no patch.
> There are others aplenty. So, that MOST games end up needing patches
> would be correct ;) 
> McG.

Alright alright alright! You *are* being pedantic, but I can bless your
sweet soul and remove my typiucal hyperbole for your sake.

lol...

I realised after I wrote this too that this argument is now kinda defunct.
Especially with Xbox live - and certainly PS3 and 360 - console games are
able to patch anyways. And, in fact, you sometimes have little choice in the
matter.

>
<snip>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 19, 2005 12:34:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.tombraider (More info?)

"Dragoncarer" <woops@no.sorry> wrote in message
news:428bc2e7@dnews.tpgi.com.au
> "McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:p Woie.93766$hu5.82621@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>> "Dragoncarer" <woops@no.sorry> wrote in message
>> news:4289d037$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au
>>> "Inu-Yasha" <tjardine@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:HFbie.23980$VH2.20562@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>> Does anyone here play TR any version 1-6, on the Playstation?
>>>> While <snip>
>>>
>>> A console game will work. Simple as that. You have the satisfaction
>>> knowing that you buy a game, go home, pop it in and bam you're
>>> playing the game. On a pc you have to install, invariably patch,
>>
>> watch it! I realize I'm being pedantic here... BUT ... 'invariably'
>> is incorrect!
>> TR2 has no patch. The only patches for TR1 were updated TOMB.EXE
>> files for 5 different video card chipsets to run the game in
>> accelerated 3D. American McGee's ALICE has no patch. Interplays
>> Descent has no patch. There are others aplenty. So, that MOST
>> games end up needing patches would be correct ;) 
>> McG.
>
> Alright alright alright! You *are* being pedantic, but I can bless
> your sweet soul and remove my typiucal hyperbole for your sake.
>
> lol...
>
> I realised after I wrote this too that this argument is now kinda
> defunct. Especially with Xbox live - and certainly PS3 and 360 -
> console games are able to patch anyways. And, in fact, you sometimes
> have little choice in the matter.
>
>>
> <snip>

Yep! Um, there are even games I have that would not work until the
patch IS applied. LOL!
McG.
!