I have Tales of Abyss for PS2 but never played it...Should I buy 3DS version?

#21moogle69Posted 2/18/2013 5:00:38 PM
the 3DS version is the superior version, so yes.
---
3DSXL FC: 0087-3600-6980, PSP/PS3 PSN ID: snoteat01 WIIU ID: Chaosking
Currently playing: Xenoblade, SMG2, Dissidia012, Radiant H, TOTA3DS, R&CHD, OkamiHD
#22Gandalf the IstariPosted 2/19/2013 9:59:57 AM
Kaze_Memaryu posted...
Gandalf the Istari posted...
I bought the 3ds version to replay - I play handhelds much more frequently than my consoles, and the loading is much improved.

That much credit is allowed for the game - but everything else is worse: the sound, the graphics, the controls. Heck, it doesn't even have local multiplayer!

So, you better not do that. It's not worth it at all, especially if you already have the PS2 version.


Eh. Sound graphics and controls I don't notice any difference in to be honest. Local multiplayer is nice I guess... but I've never used it extensively in a Tales game - 60+ hour rpgs don't really lend themselves to multiplayer in a significant way.

The game is practically an exact port with improved loading times.
#23Gandalf the IstariPosted 2/19/2013 10:01:17 AM
Kaze_Memaryu posted...
OoSubaruoO posted...
Kaze_Memaryu posted...
Gandalf the Istari posted...
I bought the 3ds version to replay - I play handhelds much more frequently than my consoles, and the loading is much improved.

That much credit is allowed for the game - but everything else is worse: the sound, the graphics, the controls. Heck, it doesn't even have local multiplayer!

So, you better not do that. It's not worth it at all, especially if you already have the PS2 version.

The 3DS version is clearly worse than the Ps2 version. Except the load times.

Sorry, but some mistakes cannot go uncorrected. Even when leaving out the technical points, not having multiplayer on a Tales Of game is simply a crime against humanity.


The number of people who actually use this feature is probably a tiny fraction of the people who play the games. Sorry it's such a big loss for you - but it definitely doesn't ruin the game. Multiplayer doesn't make a lot of sense in 60+ hour rpgs and even less in handheld ones.
#24OoSubaruoOPosted 2/19/2013 10:03:22 AM
Gandalf the Istari posted...
Kaze_Memaryu posted...
OoSubaruoO posted...
Kaze_Memaryu posted...
Gandalf the Istari posted...
I bought the 3ds version to replay - I play handhelds much more frequently than my consoles, and the loading is much improved.

That much credit is allowed for the game - but everything else is worse: the sound, the graphics, the controls. Heck, it doesn't even have local multiplayer!

So, you better not do that. It's not worth it at all, especially if you already have the PS2 version.

The 3DS version is clearly worse than the Ps2 version. Except the load times.

Sorry, but some mistakes cannot go uncorrected. Even when leaving out the technical points, not having multiplayer on a Tales Of game is simply a crime against humanity.


The number of people who actually use this feature is probably a tiny fraction of the people who play the games. Sorry it's such a big loss for you - but it definitely doesn't ruin the game. Multiplayer doesn't make a lot of sense in 60+ hour rpgs and even less in handheld ones.


It's so annoying when people change your post around, to suit their needs.
#25sharinguyPosted 2/19/2013 10:26:12 AM
No stick to the PS2 version. The 3DS version has shorter loading times but has worse textures and Models. Also despite running at a lower resolution than the original the battles run at half the FPS and has FPS drops here and there while the PS2 version looks better and runs at a smooth constant 60 FPS during battle.
---
PSN: Dorman_777
Pokemon Black FC: 5414-9379-0757