PSP gets ~7000 PSone Games, we love old games right?

That was when i last checked, Quite a while ago, and here the 2 gig's are like $90-100-ish (CAD)

I bought a gig stick at Gamecrazy the other day for $70.

Third party brand, though. Still, prices radically dropped on memory sticks subsequently to the release of the core PSP set.

Meh, ePSXe can run PSX games at full speed, and even if the download service is free, torrents are better =3

Can you play it portable?

Who the hell has time to play a game like Final Fantasy VII or Metal Gear Solid portable anyway? Other than road trips.

I play Video games at school all the time

I got a 512 mb stick for like 20 dollars at Best Buy. There was a gig one for like 40 something.

That's like asking who has time to play an RPG on the Gameboy Advance, or Super Mario 64 DS. Some people on this forum actually get out a lot and it's nice to have something a little more meaty than "Meowth's Super Tic-Tac-Toe" when you're waiting to arrive at said destination.

This post has been edited by Kaepora Ocelot on Jul 2 2006, 07:51 PM

Dude, he has a point about MGS. It's 90% cutscenes. Not good for portable.

And there's a huge difference between playing an RPG on the DS/GBA and on the PSP, and that's the load times, which DO make a substantial difference.

Anyways, while I have a PSP I could care less, since I already own any PS1 games I give two ****s about.

You wouldn't have load times if it was DLC, because it's all hard memory not Disk reading.

Still without a right analog stick or l2 and r2 buttons are these games worth playing. Yes you will be able to play most PS1 games but control will still be bad. Also will it look any good on the screen?

not many games used R2 and L2, and i don't have any Analog controllers for my PSX.. So it really dosen't affect it, as for the screen, simple formatting.

Most PS1 games didnt use analog o.o

You're wrong. The PSP is emulating PS1's disc data. Much like the games on Nintendo's virtual consoles service, there would be absolutely no load times.

So in reality there's no substance to the 'omg load times' argument this time.

EDIT: Oh, and Metal Gear Solid didn't have nearly as many cutscenes as the two other games in the series did.

This post has been edited by Kaepora Ocelot on Jul 2 2006, 09:22 PM

I'm just going to add How Great this is for a portable console, And yet everyone is going "oh this sucks cause *insert point thats easily correctable*"

MGS2 had more, 3 didn't have NEARLY as many as either of them.

While that may be the case, the first Metal Gear Solid's cutscenes weren't NEARLY as long as the ones found in MGS2, or MGS3. So it's a pretty slanted statistic to say that 90% of a game is comprised soley of cinematics, when about each cinematic only takes over an incremental portion of the game.

Dude, yes they were. The cutscene after the Revolver Ocelot fight is bordered on half an hour or more. As did the one after the Ninja fight. Psycho Mantis, Sniper Wolf, and Vulcan Raven all had death scenes totalling up to about 15 minutes each. 90% cutscenes may be a bit of a hyperbole, but the fact remians that there WERE a ridiculous amount of cutscenes and it makes it incredibly unsuitable for pick up and go play.

Then explain to me how i can beat the game in 10 hours without skipping FMV's?

...Because it's not that hard to do? MGS wasn't by any means a terribly long game.

My point is I don't think it's terribly well-suited for portable play with the way that the game was structured.

This post has been edited by Greliz on Jul 2 2006, 09:39 PM