Quote Originally Posted by Bolivar View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno View Post
Ports and remakes don't mean much when you already own the game. Especially when some of the ports are not as good (PS1 versions of the FFV, VI and CT) so whether the game is good is pretty pointless for an old timer who already owns your wares.
They don't have to mean much. All they mean is that the system has a game that another doesn't, hence why the PSP trumps all other handhelds.
So a handheld having ports and remakes from another system mean that the system has games another doesn't? I think you may want to reword that because it's the literal definition of wrong as it stands.

Pretty sure you meant that the PSP has ports and remakes which the DS didn't. But this still begs the question for me of why someone should get pumped for a handheld who's best titles were ports and remakes of 5-10 year old games? It's not even like many of the ones you seem to care so much about weren't readily available used on the PSX, on the PSN for PS3, or god forbid, through emulation. And some are really just ports of bad PSX ports of games which are almost 20 years old and easily emulated or have superior versions on other handhelds which are still readily available, creates even less of a reason to get excited.

Now look, I like my PSP, I enjoyed War of the Lions, and I won't say that ports and remakes are bad because there are always people who never played them. But I didn't buy a PSP to play ports of PSX games and bad ports of SNES games. Whatever happened to selling a console or handheld on what it brings to the future of gaming, not what it brings from gaming history? Being able to go back and play old classics is great, but it's not something for any console to try and hang it's hat on alone.

It's like arguing the biggest selling point for the PS2 was backwards compatibility. If that were true, it'd be a pretty sorry state of affairs for the console.