MODS PLEASE LOCK THIS THREAD; THANKS!!

dave4shmups · Post by **dave4shmups** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 3:20 am

I was quite surprised to find out about this DC title. From the Gamespot vids I watched, it looks like the old-school Prince of Persia done in 3D-in other words, nothing like the Sands of Time, or Warrior Within. If so, I'd definately like to pick this one up. Has anyone played it/any comments?

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 3:28 am

Prince of Persia 3D is widely considered a failure.

Elixir · Post by **Elixir** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:40 am

Most games for the dreamcast are widely considered a failure.

Look at Shenmue, for example. If it were released on PS2, imagine the publicity it would of obtained?

roushimsx · Post by **roushimsx** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:46 am

The game was released on PC and Dreamcast and was considered a failure on both platforms...not because of sales, but because of the execution of the actual game.

The control and camera are both horrible and really do wonders for destroying any fun to be had in the game.

There's a demo out for the PC version...so download that and see how you like it before you actually spend money on either the PC or DC version.

Sands of Time was a much, much, MUCH better Prince of Persia game. Warrior Within...eh...it was better than Prince of Persia 3D.

Post by **BulletMagnet** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:49 am

I haven't played it, but (IIRC) I've heard it compared to Tomb Raider, for better or worse.

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 5:05 am

Elixir wrote:Most games for the dreamcast are widely considered a failure.

Look at Shenmue, for example. If it were released on PS2, imagine the publicity it would of obtained?

No, it was considered a terrible game and an insult to the Prince of Persia name.

Elixir · Post by **Elixir** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 7:34 am

sethsez wrote:
Elixir wrote:Most games for the dreamcast are widely considered a failure.

Look at Shenmue, for example. If it were released on PS2, imagine the publicity it would of obtained?
No, it was considered a terrible game and an insult to the Prince of Persia name.

And replying with that relates to what I said how? It doesn't, so don't reply just for the hell of doing so.

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 8:20 am

Elixir wrote:
sethsez wrote:
Elixir wrote:Most games for the dreamcast are widely considered a failure.

Look at Shenmue, for example. If it were released on PS2, imagine the publicity it would of obtained?
No, it was considered a terrible game and an insult to the Prince of Persia name.
And replying with that relates to what I said how? It doesn't, so don't reply just for the hell of doing so.

I said it was a failure. You said "most DC games are widely considered failures." It appeared that I hadn't been clear with what I meant (it was a failure as a game, not a financial failure), so I clarified it.

And don't tell me what to reply or not reply to, k? Much as you might hate to find this out, you don't own the board, and your reply had nothing to do with the topic anyway, so you telling me not to reply just for the hell of it is rather ironic.

Stormwatch · Post by **Stormwatch** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:11 am

Kids, don't fight! Or I'll beat the fuck out of you! ...back to the topic: yes, it is a bad game.

Ord · Post by **Ord** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:43 am

Elixir wrote:Most games for the dreamcast are widely considered a failure.

Elixir · Post by **Elixir** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:48 am

Oh, yes. Replying with a "rolleyes" smiley is such an intelligent thing to do.

I was talking about dreamcast games. Apparently, that message didn't seem to reach the brain. Somehow this person managed to miss the fact that my original talking point was about dreamcast games and their genre, not Prince of Persia.

My little comment was relating to dreamcast games, bolded for the fifth time just incase you hadn't realized the point yet. And then there's this - "No, it was considered a terrible game and an insult to the Prince of Persia name." as if I'm being corrected. Wrong, the "Prince of Persia name" has nothing to do with failure dreamcast games.

The "Prince of Persia" series is in relation to the dreamcast game, and is in the list of millions of failed dreamcast games, but that still doesn't divert the attention away from the fact that my initial reply was utterly misread.

Edit: Here you go.

2 entries found for ironic.
i·ron·ic Audio pronunciation of "ironic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-rnk) also i·ron·i·cal (-rn-kl)
adj.

1. Characterized by or constituting irony.
2. Given to the use of irony. See Synonyms at sarcastic.
3. Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended: madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker.

This word is better when it's used in a situation which makes sense. It's a well known fact that the dreamcast is used for a) piracy and b) people who stay emotionally attached to Sega and can't accept the fact that they're making new games with hedgehogs who run around with guns. And this equals c) failure.

I'll save you the time and effort in replying, and do it for you.

Elixir, you're wrong. I never indicated anything about "failure" titles on the dreamcast. I was indicating athat the Prince of Persia title was a failure due to the game's self aspects.

That's still not what my original point was.

But Elixir, you were relating to something totally off-topic, then you said not to post for the sake of doing so, and this is ironic?!?!?!? LZOZLZL~L~~~~~

No, as said before, this title is in the streamload of titles that flopped for the dreamcast. Look at Namco, they made Soul Calibur and then their next effort was what? Mr Driller. Wow.

So you see, this could go on for awhile. If you find somebody owning a dreamcast that's had it since 1999, and all official games, they probably own one or two sports games - and don't get me started on those things. However, if you find somebody from 2003 onwards, seeking/buying/owning a dreamcast and treating it like sliced bread, then your chances of piracy are greatly increased.

Yeah, piracy is on all consoles, but what idiot in their right mind is going to download 6.5 GB to grind their own dvd-writer into the ground overnight burning Fable? Or the 7.5 GB which is Princess Mononoke? Even then consoles would require modchipping and the risk of damaging their units. Dreamcast on the other hand, has no fucking protection whatsoever making it an instant failure. People won't do things that aren't easy. Or require trying very hard.

I'm sick of talking about failures, so please let it rest now, k? You don't own the forums, so you can't tell people their wrong just by replying to something that's still relevant.

Ord · Post by **Ord** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 11:55 am

Elixir wrote:Oh, yes. Replying with a "rolleyes" smiley is such an intelligent thing to do.

I was talking about dreamcast games. Apparently, that message didn't seem to reach the brain. Somehow this person managed to miss the fact that my original talking point was about dreamcast games and their genre, not Prince of Persia.

My little comment was relating to dreamcast games, bolded for the fifth time just incase you hadn't realized the point yet. And then there's this - "No, it was considered a terrible game and an insult to the Prince of Persia name." as if I'm being corrected. Wrong, the "Prince of Persia name" has nothing to do with failure dreamcast games.

The "Prince of Persia" series is in relation to the dreamcast game, and is in the list of millions of failed dreamcast games, but that still doesn't divert the attention away from the fact that my initial reply was utterly misread.

Edit: Here you go.

2 entries found for ironic.
i·ron·ic Audio pronunciation of "ironic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-rnk) also i·ron·i·cal (-rn-kl)
adj.

1. Characterized by or constituting irony.
2. Given to the use of irony. See Synonyms at sarcastic.
3. Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended: madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker.
This word is better when it's used in a situation which makes sense. It's a well known fact that the dreamcast is used for a) piracy and b) people who stay emotionally attached to Sega and can't accept the fact that they're making new games with hedgehogs who run around with guns. And this equals c) failure.

I'll save you the time and effort in replying, and do it for you.

Elixir, you're wrong. I never indicated anything about "failure" titles on the dreamcast. I was indicating athat the Prince of Persia title was a failure due to the game's self aspects.

That's still not what my original point was.

But Elixir, you were relating to something totally off-topic, then you said not to post for the sake of doing so, and this is ironic?!?!?!? LZOZLZL~L~~~~~

No, as said before, this title is in the streamload of titles that flopped for the dreamcast. Look at Namco, they made Soul Calibur and then their next effort was what? Mr Driller. Wow.

So you see, this could go on for awhile. If you find somebody owning a dreamcast that's had it since 1999, and all official games, they probably own one or two sports games - and don't get me started on those things. However, if you find somebody from 2003 onwards, seeking/buying/owning a dreamcast and treating it like sliced bread, then your chances of piracy are greatly increased.

Yeah, piracy is on all consoles, but what idiot in their right mind is going to download 6.5 GB to grind their own dvd-writer into the ground overnight burning Fable? Or the 7.5 GB which is Princess Mononoke? Even then consoles would require modchipping and the risk of damaging their units. Dreamcast on the other hand, has no fucking protection whatsoever making it an instant failure. People won't do things that aren't easy. Or require trying very hard.

I'm sick of talking about failures, so please let it rest now, k? You don't own the forums, so you can't tell people their wrong just by replying to something that's still relevant.

Andi · Post by **Andi** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:22 pm

Yeah. That Elixir guy seems pretty negative and overly defensive.

All the time. Constantly.

dave4shmups · Post by **dave4shmups** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:23 pm

roushimsx wrote:The game was released on PC and Dreamcast and was considered a failure on both platforms...not because of sales, but because of the execution of the actual game.

The control and camera are both horrible and really do wonders for destroying any fun to be had in the game.

There's a demo out for the PC version...so download that and see how you like it before you actually spend money on either the PC or DC version.

Sands of Time was a much, much, MUCH better Prince of Persia game. Warrior Within...eh...it was better than Prince of Persia 3D.

BACK ON TOPIC....

...thanks for that link; I definately will try this game out. I personally hate the Sands of Time. I thought the controls were terrible, and that having to basically kill your enemies twice was ridiculous, and made combat more cumbersome then fun.

I know the orig. Prince of Persia required some gymnastic moves, but I thought that Sands of Time took that to an absurd extreme. Yes the game has killer graphics, but amaze me with it's graphics was about all this game did for me.

Andi · Post by **Andi** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:26 pm

dave4shmups wrote:BACK ON TOPIC....

That was a good one Dave. Someone hook this guy up with a rimshot!

Sorry. Back on topic.

dave4shmups · Post by **dave4shmups** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:29 pm

EDIT repeat post.

PaCrappa · Post by **PaCrappa** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 5:10 pm

Elixir wrote:I'm sick of talking about failures, so please let it rest now, k?

I wonder if that sort of thing is covered by the dictionary definition of ironic.

Pa

PS: Go ahead. Unleash some creativity on us.

dave4shmups · Post by **dave4shmups** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 5:20 pm

Can we please just drop this crap, and could someone PLEASE at least suggest what they think is wrong with this demo??

The only review I could find of this game is here:

http://www.dcseeker.com/userreviews/pri ... ersia.html

Far from being a disgrace to the series, it sounds just like the older Prince of Persia games- don't like those and you won't like the DC one; at least that's the impression I got from this review.

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 5:35 pm

Elixir wrote:a hilarious rant

Anyway, dave, if you like the demo then you might as well go for it, but everything I've seen about the game says it has terrible controls, bad level design and an awful camera. I've never heard a good thing said about it, but if you like the demo and find it for cheap, I guess it couldn't hurt to pick it up.

dave4shmups · Post by **dave4shmups** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 5:44 pm

*bangs head against nearest wall*

I can't GET the demo to work; every time I try to open it, Windows tells me that there's a problem with it and it needs to close. That's what need advice on. Please someone, anyone? I shouldn't have to beg and plead on my knees on this site just to get some advice.

The n00b · Post by **The n00b** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:25 pm

*Brings out a silver platter*

My sincerest apologies, masta Dave. Have you tried running it in windows compatibility mode? What's your operating system? Do you have any annoying antivirus stuff?

Also here's a review on the PC version that you might find troubling...

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/princ ... eview.html

dave4shmups · Post by **dave4shmups** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:35 pm

The n00b wrote:*Brings out a silver platter*

My sincerest apologies, masta Dave. Have you tried running it in windows compatibility mode? What's your operating system? Do you have any annoying antivirus stuff?

Also here's a review on the PC version that you might find troubling...

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/princ ... eview.html

There's no need for sarcasm, I was just asking a question, after this thread got completely thrown off track, something for which I was not responsible-which you'd know if you'd cared to read any of the posts.

At any rate, I am using Windows XP, and I do have Norton Antivirus installed. I don't know what you mean by running it in windows compatibility mode. I have this demo installed, and my PC's telling me that it isn't installed.

EDIT: I just turned off both Norton Antivrius, and Windows Firewall, and it still says it isn't installed properly.

Forget it, I'll just take my chances on this one; I found a quite postive review of the PC version here:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin ... 39520.html

Again, it sounds like classic Prince of Persia gameplay, which I enjoy, done in 3D, so this probably wouldn't be a bad purchase for me.

Elixir · Post by **Elixir** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 7:31 pm

Yeah, I didn't expect any replies. I try resolving things and this time it seems to of worked. Actually, my original intention wasn't to sound negative or defensive. When somebody's attempting to correct me, I'm entitled to reply. Cry all you want, but that's just how it is.

I pretty much wrapped everything up earlier.

Either way, if Sega didn't drop the dreamcast project, we'd probably have the likes of Sands of Time and multi-platform titles such as Enter the Matrix.

dave4shmups · Post by **dave4shmups** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 7:54 pm

Fair enough Elixir, but I'd still like an answer to how to get this demo to work.

Elixir · Post by **Elixir** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 8:13 pm

I fear downloading something horribly stupid to help you. Since it's a demonstration from 1999, it might only work on Windows 98. That's probably what the patch is for.

dave4shmups · Post by **dave4shmups** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 8:21 pm

Yeah, you're probably right Elixir. Oh well, I'll just snag the DC version; it isn't that expensive.

roushimsx · Post by **roushimsx** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 8:28 pm

dave4shmups wrote:I don't know how to run stuff

Right click on POP3DDemo.exe
Click on Properties
Click the Compatibility Tab
Check the box that says, "Run this program in compatibility mode for..."
If you leave the dropdown box as Windows 95, you'll be golden. Feel free to play with any of the other configurations though. But yea, Windows 95 works dandy.

Now fire up the game and have "fun". And by fun, I mean enjoy the awesome camera and controls. And by Awesome I mean they suck worse now than I remember them sucking 6 years ago, and 6 years ago they sucked pretty hard.

magnum opus · Post by **magnum opus** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 8:38 pm

dave. as to your post (now edited out) as to getting a lot of condesending answers... well it's things like claiming you could only find one review for the dreamcast version online. in some rather obscure corner of the internet while apparently managing to overlook the most obvious sites:

http://dreamcast.ign.com/articles/164/164398p1.html
http://www.gamespot.com/dreamcast/adven ... index.html
http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/dreamca ... 14323.html (despite apparently finding the PC reviews)

dave4shmups · Post by **dave4shmups** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:45 pm

magnum opus wrote:dave. as to your post (now edited out) as to getting a lot of condesending answers... well it's things like claiming you could only find one review for the dreamcast version online. in some rather obscure corner of the internet while apparently managing to overlook the most obvious sites:

http://dreamcast.ign.com/articles/164/164398p1.html
http://www.gamespot.com/dreamcast/adven ... index.html
http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/dreamca ... 14323.html (despite apparently finding the PC reviews)

Umm, actually I DID find the last 2 links you mentioned, just not the first IGN one. So I did not "overlook the most obvious sites", and there was, therefore, no need for condesending answers. In any case I don't treat others that way on this forum when they ask questions, and I don't expect to be treated that way. "Do unto others" is a pretty basic social rule.

magnum opus · Post by **magnum opus** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 11:16 pm

so then.

The only review I could find of this game is here:

http://www.dcseeker.com/userreviews/pri ... ersia.html

was what, pointless and self damaging lie?