Where was that?
Originally Posted by Da_Shocker
No they don't. If your company has an anti-drug rule, you'd get fired for failing a drug test.Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Oh yeah, I like to make things up, even though I own several of the Namco collection discs for the Playstation. Why did you even bother to mention the stupid 3D museum in the first place?I guess you've never played them, then, or you'd know that you don't really need to spend much of any time in the 3d thing at all. You can access the games all from the pause screen too.
The early lineup of software for the Playstation doesn't support that notion.We don't know which one is responsible for any one case, no. But the Sony statements are there, and the paucity of 2d games is there, versus other regions, or versus even some other platforms that generation (as a percentage of the total number of titles I mean). There's enough there to pretty confidently say that it's quite likely that in some cases companies just didn't try to localize their 2d games here (particularly titles only released in Japan), but in other cases, Sony's bias, or restrictions, warded them off from trying, or blocked them from releasing things perhaps even. All of the details will probably never be known, because that stuff generally isn't public, but there is enough there to prove that it happened, at least, and that's enough.
Again, the lineup of Playstation games proves otherwise.Uh, both of those are proof for the PS2-era opposition to 2d, not the PS1-era. I mean, we have no proof that SNK ever tried to localize the first Metal Slug, so of course I couldn't blame Sony for banning it, and WD was allowed to release solo 2d PS1 games, though not the first Arc the Lad, because that was in the Stolar era and he didn't want the system to have many RPGs. But apart from Stolar and Arc the Lad, Working Designs's main problems with Sony were in the PS2 era, not the PS1.
Nope! You had Vic Ireland and SNK saying such, but the north American software released in the 1st couple of years proves otherwise.The primary proof that PS1-era Sony was biased against 2d is in the statements Sony itself made that "only 3d games are real games" and such. Those prove it, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Sony of America (SCEA) was biased against 2d. And of course that bias bled over into game localizations.
And you don't think that maybe the attitude of Ireland might have had something to do with that? His company seems to be the only one that was required to do such a thing. Atlus didn't run into those kind of roadblocks, when porting over the dated SNES version of Ogre Battle to the Playstation. You're giving Ireland too much credit, and Sony too little here.That is not true; he had wanted to release the first Arc the Lad as a standalone game, but Stolar didn't allow it. I think that was mentioned in one of the quotes of his you linked. I would guess that he only did Arc the Lad as a collection because that's the only way he could get it actually released, and he obviously really wanted to release it here. It clearly was not his first choice of how to release the series in the US.
It wasn't Sony's own statement though. This is where you are confusing facts with anecdotal evidence provided by a very questionable Vic Ireland, and an SNK representative. The software lineup before FFVII doesn't agree with your assessment.As for 2d, Sony's own statements prove that from 1995, Sony of America didn't like 2d games. The large number of 2d games localized in Europe but not the US, on both PS1 and PS2, provide some hints as to Sony of America's biases as well. SNK and WD's statements from the PS2 era prove that Sony was biased against "old-looking" 2d, and Sony's own statements corroborate that. The proof that Sony had an anti-2d bias, and that this affected game localization choices on both the PS1 and PS2, is incontrovertible.




Reply With Quote




