Talk:List of PlayStation Portable games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lets Expand On How Many Games There Are[edit]

Could the page say "There are at least currently number games" ? BatmobileFire (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

Where's Ape Escape Saru Saru? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.163.108 (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There really is no reason to have to discuss this, but I figured that if anyone had a reason not to merge them that I had not thought of, then go ahead. With the new table format, the two columns cover both articles. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't enough room in that table to write if the game only has downloadable content or if the game only offers "Internet Ranking". That table only has room to list how many players can play in the game. Also some servers get shutdown and there's no room to write that in the table either. - Akadewboy (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that issues such as those are not very common, and therefore should be in the specific game articles. If a game only offers "Internet Ranking," or infrastructure mode just for downloads, then it should have a "No" in that column. If a server gets shut down, most people only care that they can not use it anymore, and the table will reflect that. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do the servers get shut down? Wouldn't it be beneficial to Sony if the servers were kept running for a longer time period? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.10.224 (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no idea, but I think it would cost them more money to keep them running than they like to spend if it isn't a mainstream game anymore. But that's not really pertinent to this article. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I think having a list for all PSP infrastructure games is still a good thing. The small column on the main game list doesn't have room for important information like server status or game play type. I think having the list-at-a-glance is much more useful to a user interested in looking up new infrastructure games than having to sort through the entire list of PSP games. Just my opinion.--Transce080 (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there are so few games that have special conditions about the infrastructure mode that that information should just be included on the individual games' pages. If a server is shut down, then that information can be on the game's page and the list would have No under the infrastructure column since it can not be used anymore. I can understand that there are different types of gamesharing options, but what different types of infrastructure are there? A person can easily find which games have infrastructure by sorting the list, which also puts the games in order of how many people can play. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the merging. What I would like to see is the removal of that article but include a category, "PlayStation Portable Wi-Fi games" and put all of those games in there. This would still maintain a "list" of games that are wifi in alphabetized order while removing the article. This article also has the provided information about Wifi/Adhoc capabilities. If readers want more information on the game's wifi capabilities they should just click on the game's article. Strongsauce (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at infrastructure list now. This will give you an idea of what I see as the potential for that list. I figured, if you're planning on merging the list anyways, no one will mind if I update it a bit. Now that I've started testing the games, I'm finding a lot of inconsistencies between this list and the main list (and errors on both sides). I also found some games that didn't have infrastructure at all and were one or the other list. Regardless of the future of infrastructure list, I figure that it will be good to have it updated. This is only the first step in completing that table.--Transce080 (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't merge. It's very useful to have a list of multiplayer PSP titles in a separate article. Netrat_msk (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? MrKIA11 (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Region Column(s)[edit]

Instead of there being 1 column to show what regions a game was released in, should there be an individual column for each of the 4 main regions, and then a check mark or something under each one where the game was released? This would make it easy to see what games were released in a certain region by sorting the table by that column, but then the order of release would be lost, so which is more important? MrKIA11 (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genre Column[edit]

I was looking through the list and I noticed there is no column for genre. Unless there is a particular reason why there shouldn't be one I would suggest adding it. What do the rest of you think? Cyrus777 (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I do not think there is a reason for one. The main reason I would not add it is that there is limited space, and that is not an important category. People can go to the games' individual pages for that. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it would be nice for a genre column, then you can sort into genre, it would help those like me that are interested in buying games in a certain gerne. However there is limited space for it. Govvy (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated[edit]

Is it just me or are more than half the games in 'future releases' already released? I can't be too sure. Confirm? Farslayer (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that many are, but it is a possibility that some are, especially the ones without specific dates. I'm going through the list updating it all, but as you can see, I have only gotten to the middle of the M's, and I currently do not have much time to work on it. I'll try to update that section soon. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I saw some of the games that were already released in the 'future releases' column, i'll try to fix it as well KB9 (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems that the section needs more updating... If I have free time I'll check out if the "future releases for 2009" were released that year, and add them to already released games. hypersk (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Games?[edit]

There's a lot of Japanese exclusive releases missing from the list. Were they left out for a particular reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiat justitia ruat caelum (talk • contribs) 17:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think that they should be included in the list. It does not help a reader on the English Wikipedia to see games that are only in Asia. It is also hard to find reliable information on them that is in English. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question is, no, they weren't left out for a particular reason. I don't think it's a bad idea to include Japanese games in the list. Shouldn't we strive to make the list as complete as possible? Many people buy import games, especially on the PSP since it does not enforce region restrictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transce080 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have region restrictions?? I did not know that. In that case, if we could find a reliable source (in english) that has info regarding not only developer and publisher, but also multiplayer, then it would be a good idea to add them. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a list of PSP games, and not a list of English PSP games. Wikipedia is a place for all knowledge, not just the knowledge that most Westerners would be interested in (must be unbiased, therefore, we can't neglect Japanese games). Also, many Japanese games already have their own article. Why shouldn't they be included? --darkfeline 12:37:22 3 Aug 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.49.12 (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Well, I came here looking exactly for Japanese games, you can legally buy them directly from the Japanese PSN if you have an account (I do), and I do want to buy some of them (like Bleach Heat the Soul 5, Soul Carnival 1 and 2, Ikkitousen Eloquent Fist, God Eater, etc), and I wanted to know if they had multiplayer or gamesharing capabilities before buying. I guess that I'll do some research and add my results (and the sources) here. Hypersk (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot Academy[edit]

Is Pilot Academy going to be released in the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.222.72 (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not yet planned to be according to GameSpot. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well IGN says they are. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.222.72 (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe GameSpot just hasn't posted it yet then, but I tend to find them more reliable. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Games count[edit]

I think there should be a games count information on the page. Can it be done automatically from the table? Cirocco (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I have seen other articles that are just manual, no automatic ones. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You probably could do an automatic maths calculation, all it needs to do is count the number of rows in the table. Govvy (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperative Games[edit]

Can someone add a list of all co-op games in this list? its a wonderful page, that info can make it fantastic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.53.9 (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean games that have co-op missions? That info might be hard to find, and I'm not so sure it would be notable enough. Whether or not it has multiplayer I think is enough. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firmware requirements[edit]

I'd like to see a list of what firmware each game requires added as a column on here --76.215.139.218 (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been previously discussed here. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is just absurd.[edit]

Do you realize that you're not the only editor? I personally think the future releases section is great to keep separated. The reason games are listed multiple times, if you would look closely, is that they are released on different days in different places. The redlinked titles also don't look good. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Few, if any other lists do this. It is absurd to list a game four times. It's a waste of space, and when you're 100KB, you can't just use up space for EXTRAS.
  2. Well, I guess looking good is better than accessibility and quality. If there are no red links, it is that much harder to make an entirely linked list of games. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you have a reason to have four entries doesn't absolve it from being a completely insane reason. Future release list is one thing, but when you're constantly listing the same game, it's just completely unnecessary. The list is in excess of 100kb, and we're wasting space with silly crap like that? And then you remove red links, choosing the ease to create the articles to reduce the red links with "just deleting them". This article has so many problems, but you decide to get rid of a problem by making a different one? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Each of those listings is so minor. You removed the entire section and only saved 3KB, at the expense of "accessibility and quality", which sounds like you care about. And considering it a waste of space is your opinion. Every game that has a page to be linked to is linked, and any that do not should be requested, not just redlinked. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is that because it "only" drops it 3kb, it's not worth it? 1kb drop is worth it if it means shrinking this article's incredibly large size. There is NO loss in information by removing the three extra Resistances - only the three extra dates, which this list doesn't even do! And your basic argument is that a minuscule difference between the four entries for Resistance is worth repeating it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In comparison, it is minor. Even though you think the information is useless, that's your opinion. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't even use multiple release dates, why must we use it for future releases? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is for people in those regions to see when it comes out. On that day, the entry should be removed from Future Releases and moved to the main list, or the region should just be added to the regions where the game has already been released. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to do that, then you should change the future release table to have multiple release slots. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a possibility. I still think the current way is better though. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to comment that the PSP is a relatively new platform. 100KB+ is pretty big, and the size of the article is just going to continue to grow. It might be best to split the article into individual articles covering 5- or 10-year periods, and move the unreleased games to its own article as well. As for the release dates/regions, why not just use the {{vgrelease}} template (or the variant designed specifically for tables) to list the release dates/regions in a single column? If a game has not been released yet in a particular region, you can just specify "TBA" for that region. See Chronology of console role-playing games: 1995 to 1999 for an example. SharkD (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to rain on your parade, but I believe that listing future releases among the current ones is a better idea. It's less work to organize them when they actually ARE released, and it doesn't benefit anyone because nobody comes here looking for "list of future PSP games," just "list of PSP games."--ZXCVBNM 00:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But a game that has not been released is not yet a game. Plus it is harder to get reliable data, that does turn out true once it is released, for games that have not been released. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that were true, we couldn't have unreleased games in any categories. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The changes would make more sense if the games were sorted chronologically. Moving them from one page to another is not that much work. Finally, an "Unreleased" page would be a good place to [Ed. also] store those pesky cancelled games. That's what I've done with Chronology of console role-playing games: Unreleased. SharkD (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, you should not so hastily presume what readers do and do not come here looking for. You might be wrong. SharkD (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, you should at least write the release dates in YYYY-MM-DD format, because otherwise table sorting doesn't work. SharkD (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are. There is hidden text of YYYY-MM-DD before each {{date|YYYY-MM-DD}}. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woops! I didn't look closely enough when I clicked the sort button. SharkD (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Break[edit]

I see this has been discussed extensively above but it doesn't really look like anything came of it. It seems insane to me to have a separate row for every release date and publisher. Potentially, you'd have a row for every English-speaking country in the world. It seems completely inefficient. Simply as a user (not an editor) I was baffled by the article when I first came to it to look something up. The fact that the default sort on each table is different is confusing. I forget what game I was actually looking for but as an example, say I trying to look up the Australian release date for Gran Turismo: I'd first look down the first list of games I came to and would notice that it wasn't there. Then I'd probably scroll down further and find that unreleased games are listed separately and realise that it might not of been released yet. Then I'd see an entry for Gran Turismo as coming out on 1 October but notice that's in Europe. I wouldn't know which way to look for the AUS one so I'd have to look all the way up and down the table for it. You may say "read the page properly then!" but most readers don't and shouldn't have to. It should be intuitive. This is made more confusing by the fact that the List of PlayStation 3 games and List of downloadable PlayStation games (which also lists PSP games) are arranged differently. Far from the suggestions above that the current layout is more user-friendly, I think it's extremely unuser-friendly. My thinking is that a user is going to come to this article with a game in-mind expecting to find a list of PSP games where they can easily look-up the release date for it. Having separate lists assumes the user knows whether the game has been released yet or not. From an editor's perspective, I've just added a release date for a game and moved already released games into the top list. This took ages. The page load times were very long considering the amount of information that the article provides and having to move items from a date-sorted list to an alpha-sorted one was a pain. In general, updating the page is far more complicated than it needs to be.

One thing that makes this list unique is that the PSP is region independent, so the first release date is the most important. To have separate columns for each region would dramatically increase the page size and leave much wasted space. I think the main reason for this page is not for individule details, but to compare PSP games as a group (i.e. which games have what features, which games have a certain developer released, etc.). As far as having 2 separate tables, it is not technically a game for the PSP until it has been released. And it makes sense that games that have not come out are sorted by when they are expected to, and this makes it easier to see what needs to moved up next. There are times when a game is announced, but never gets released. If you are trying to find the release date for individual game, then wouldn't it make sense to look at that game's page, where all of the release details are indicated? Of course this all just my opinion. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a minor note, is there a reason why Template:dts can't be used instead of the hidden span workaround? This would also help cut down the page size. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 14:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{dts}} can't be used because there are too many dates, unless they have recently changed the limit for template calls. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think should have only the games released =0

--Ekans La Cobra (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rock band unplugged[edit]

Sony announced a Rock band game to be released on the PSP. Why is it not in this table? Tubularbells1993 (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just no one had added it yet. I did now. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I might have taken care of it myself, I'm just not familiar with the way tables work on Wikipedia XD Tubularbells1993 (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical Error. . .[edit]

I'm not authorized to fix this, so. . .: There's no country named Australasia. I'm sure it's meant to be Australia and then Asia. Mia (cannot disclose personal information at this time) 71.125.137.160 (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Australasia is intended, but thanks for noticing. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slight break in formatting?[edit]

As of 4/22/2010 midnight...I noticed the row with "Dante's Inferno" is off. It appears to end before completing the "Released Regions". Instead it is populated by information for Daxter. Seeing this on Firefox 3.6.3. Not entirely familiar with the editing of a complex list straight off the bat so maybe someone can look at it? AnimeKid (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need of update[edit]

There is a need to update the list of games in this sections:

  • Future Releases
  • Released Games

These games were released recently so they must be put under released:

  • Fifa 11
  • Nba 2K11
  • Eye pet

112.201.186.163 (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.186.163 (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This game is missing:[edit]

The Red Star - Relased: Mar 18, 2010 - Action Game - Publisher: XS Games - AdHoc: No - Infrastructure: No - GameSharing: No

Instead of posting something like that here why don't you add it to the article yourself?

CLICK...if you dare! (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dissidia Duodecim: Final Fantasy to PSP games list.[edit]

The game is now released, should not be on future release section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.144.202 (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those that help[edit]

Ello' to the people that actually help with this article page, was curious about some of the non-added games on here, I want to add as many as possible that I know are out, but many of tehm were only released in japan and don't have pages, so would it be alright if I went ahead & added them, or should I wait and make pages for them, or just add them all to the talk page?

CLICK...if you dare! (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about a list sorted by release date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.180.152 (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnyard Blast[edit]

This game does not exist on the psp; only for nintendo ds. AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Anthonythegamer[reply]

Barnyard Blast was ported to the PSP and released in EU regions and I believe AUS as well
- Rswslowman (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should PS1 games be mixed in?[edit]

Right now there are a lot of PS1 games that are part of the list, but I don't see the point of mixing games from two systems, even if one can play the others titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclonex45 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, PS1 games shouldn't be in the list, if they are bor both platforms, nd only directing to the PS1 game, yet it notes that tehre is a psp version of it, yet that page in particular doesn't exist, then it would be fine, other then that, PS1 games should be removed from the PSP game list. Click...If you dare! o,0` (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate columns for released regions?[edit]

I am a PSP collector that has been looking for a list of physical retail releases in the US. The list of games here is extensive but still incomplete (I've added a few). The trouble I found was that the release information for all regions is in a single column which makes sorting that column useless. I propose eliminating the columns for adhoc/wifi/gamesharing (this can/should be found on individual game pages)and replacing them with columns for NA/JP/EU/AUS region, with the release date in the applicable boxes and a blank if it didn't release in that region. I realize I could just do this myself (and I would, gladly) but I don't want to do a bunch of work just to have an admin revert it or something. Rswslowman (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retro City Rampage[edit]

RCR had a PSP version released on July 19, 2016. And yes, I mean a PSP version, which is different from the Vita version and really does run on my PSP-2000. It was never on UMD but you can download it if you buy RCR for PS3.

The table is really broken[edit]

The last working version of the table was in November 2019. After someone tried to re-arrange the columns in December 2019, now it's really broken. In the "Publisher" and "Developer" columns, there is a date on some of the rows rather than a company name. Similarly some company info is appearing in release date columns. Kidburla (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the page to the last functioning one and incorporated updates to the page from there. Gaardus (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to the correct things[edit]

I'm not a wikipedia editor, in fact I have no clue of how to edit a page but I couldn't help but notice that the game Jungle Party linked to the political party in Iran and not the child-friendly game. Decided to point this out because maybe other games are incorrectly linked as well??? Twelvedegrees (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should re-releases be included?[edit]

I noticed that this list is missing the Mune Kyun Otome Collection, which was a series of budget re-releases of certain D3 Publisher otome games. As far as I know all of the games were already released on the PSP before that, so none should be particularly unique besides the packaging and serials, but they have separate entries on the PlayStation website (ex. the Last Escort Club Katze one can be found on that wiki page). Should we include these re-releases as separate entries? Londonbeat41692 (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Ultimate Team Play[edit]

A training game made for Hilton employees, it's definitely boring, but it trains new employees for the new thing. It is also verified by links. 204.100.235.134 (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-8 isn't a game[edit]

The first entry is -8 and that just isn't a game that exists. i would correct it myself but i am scared of it being something someone mistyped and removing the entry entirely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.24.90.209 (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a game that exists. Sources:
Retronuc (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Rustle[edit]

Moving this title from the List of PlayStation minis page to this main one.

Source is a blog post on the official PlayStation website describing a sale with items on discount, which lists the title under the "Full Games" section and not the "minis" section.

Retronuc (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patito Feo El Juego.[edit]

It is a game based on an Argentinian Telenovela and it is not listed here.

•https://blog.es.playstation.com/2011/08/01/patito-feo-el-juego-ms-bonito-a-precio-de-ganga/ 168.243.186.111 (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_PlayStation_Portable_games&oldid=1202271059"