The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I bought my PS2 soon after release and it only serves to bring continual disappointment. Games come in dibs and drabs with very few titles worth buying (SSX, Timesplitters).
Magazines only ever seem to FEATURE the next generation of must-have titles as the release dates just get put further and further back. So in the meantime, developers (crappy and reputable) put out average to awful games in order to exploit us, the consumers who are desparate for games. I do concede that some games are of a good standard. But I have bought a next generation console. I dont want good, I want the best!!!
I was most hopefull for Zone of the Enders, but just turned out to be an incredibly tedious blaster so I returned it (after playing the MGS2 demo to death!)
I bought my PS2 to play games on and treated the DVD as an extra. As it stands, it is completely the other way around.
Does anyone else feel the same way?
Magazines only ever seem to FEATURE the next generation of must-have titles as the release dates just get put further and further back. So in the meantime, developers (crappy and reputable) put out average to awful games in order to exploit us, the consumers who are desparate for games. I do concede that some games are of a good standard. But I have bought a next generation console. I dont want good, I want the best!!!
I was most hopefull for Zone of the Enders, but just turned out to be an incredibly tedious blaster so I returned it (after playing the MGS2 demo to death!)
I bought my PS2 to play games on and treated the DVD as an extra. As it stands, it is completely the other way around.
Does anyone else feel the same way?
Page:
Yeah i realsied that after i'd already posted.
I was hoping no-one would notice....
:-)
I was hoping no-one would notice....
:-)
Your Honour wrote:
> Adrian, that was a value for the number of untextured poly's. The
> actual number you get on your screen is a lot lower, around 20
> million i think.
If you have read a previous post I said it as around 20 million with all the effects. I was just posting the maximum amount it could generate as somebody thought it could 85 million but It cant. The figures I posted were untextured like I had said in a previous post, which arent really used in games.
> Adrian, that was a value for the number of untextured poly's. The
> actual number you get on your screen is a lot lower, around 20
> million i think.
If you have read a previous post I said it as around 20 million with all the effects. I was just posting the maximum amount it could generate as somebody thought it could 85 million but It cant. The figures I posted were untextured like I had said in a previous post, which arent really used in games.
Adrian, that was a value for the number of untextured poly's. The actual number you get on your screen is a lot lower, around 20 million i think.
From the Offical PS2 mag the first every one it says.
Maximum Polygon rate = 75 million polygon/second
3D CG Geometric Transformation = 66 million polygon/second
Maximum Polygon rate = 75 million polygon/second
3D CG Geometric Transformation = 66 million polygon/second
PS2 doesnt do 85 million Polygons a second. There have been rumors of 75 million and 66 million but I dont think 85 million. I think it could do about 20 million with all the effects e.t.c As they only quote the polygons a second with no effects at all, just basic polygons which arent really used in games as they have no texture and look rubbish.
Does anyone know what it would take to match 85 million polygons/second?
Someone should do a test on this.
But still, there's always the price.
Someone should do a test on this.
But still, there's always the price.
turbonutter wrote:
>To run PS2 games on a PC, you would need at least a 2ghz
> machine with something about twice as powerful as an ATI >rage fury.
But that would be because of the emulation which would be used. As a N64 emulator needs a pretty decent machine to be used as it needs to be emulated like a N64 and not a PC. Also a ATi Rage Fury isnt a good graphics card to use. A Geforce 3 or even 2 would run it very well.
The only way to say how powerful the PS2 is compared to a PC is to compare the rate of the graphics card to the PS2 rate.When I say rate I mean , Polgons a second e.t.c. I know that you need the RAM and processor as well to make the graphics card run at the rate its meant to.
>Just take the PSone for example. Compare Ridge Racer to >Ridge Type 4. See the differance? This isn't because the >PSone got better, is it? Developers got good with the >PSone, and they will too with the PS2. It just takes time.
It amazing how the games have changed with time. I remeber that Tekken 2 was the first game to be developed by Namco with the aid of the analyser which let the programmers see how much of the PS1 capabilitys were being used at that point. I think that Tekken 1 had only used about 30-40 %. The games that are coming out now e.g FF9 would use at least 95% maybe even to 100%.
Programmers will always learn new tricks to use when programming games. I cant imagine what Gran Turismo 4 will look like as if its the same team as GT3, they would have had alot of experience and will know how to program the harder effects e.g rain tracks.
I read ages ago that the launch games like Ridge Racer 5 and Tekken Tag run on the pure power of the PS2 and didnt even make use of the emotion engine to do all of its clever tricks it can do.
I've rambled on for too long so I will shut up now.
>To run PS2 games on a PC, you would need at least a 2ghz
> machine with something about twice as powerful as an ATI >rage fury.
But that would be because of the emulation which would be used. As a N64 emulator needs a pretty decent machine to be used as it needs to be emulated like a N64 and not a PC. Also a ATi Rage Fury isnt a good graphics card to use. A Geforce 3 or even 2 would run it very well.
The only way to say how powerful the PS2 is compared to a PC is to compare the rate of the graphics card to the PS2 rate.When I say rate I mean , Polgons a second e.t.c. I know that you need the RAM and processor as well to make the graphics card run at the rate its meant to.
>Just take the PSone for example. Compare Ridge Racer to >Ridge Type 4. See the differance? This isn't because the >PSone got better, is it? Developers got good with the >PSone, and they will too with the PS2. It just takes time.
It amazing how the games have changed with time. I remeber that Tekken 2 was the first game to be developed by Namco with the aid of the analyser which let the programmers see how much of the PS1 capabilitys were being used at that point. I think that Tekken 1 had only used about 30-40 %. The games that are coming out now e.g FF9 would use at least 95% maybe even to 100%.
Programmers will always learn new tricks to use when programming games. I cant imagine what Gran Turismo 4 will look like as if its the same team as GT3, they would have had alot of experience and will know how to program the harder effects e.g rain tracks.
I read ages ago that the launch games like Ridge Racer 5 and Tekken Tag run on the pure power of the PS2 and didnt even make use of the emotion engine to do all of its clever tricks it can do.
I've rambled on for too long so I will shut up now.
Hello?
To run PS2 games on a PC, you would need at least a 2ghz machine with something about twice as powerful as an ATI rage fury. Don't forget your high quallity sound card, DVD ROM either!!!
Anyway, as said before, a PlayStation 2 plays games. Good ones. Bu the sad fact is, to get good performance out of this beast, you need to spend about one and a half years on it. This is why all the good games are coming out now. Timesplitters was excellent considering developement time.
Just take the PSone for example. Compare Ridge Racer to Ridge Type 4. See the differance? This isn't because the PSone got better, is it? Developers got good with the PSone, and they will too with the PS2. It just takes time.
Oh, and by the way, a PS2 quality PC would cost £4000+, so be thankful
To run PS2 games on a PC, you would need at least a 2ghz machine with something about twice as powerful as an ATI rage fury. Don't forget your high quallity sound card, DVD ROM either!!!
Anyway, as said before, a PlayStation 2 plays games. Good ones. Bu the sad fact is, to get good performance out of this beast, you need to spend about one and a half years on it. This is why all the good games are coming out now. Timesplitters was excellent considering developement time.
Just take the PSone for example. Compare Ridge Racer to Ridge Type 4. See the differance? This isn't because the PSone got better, is it? Developers got good with the PSone, and they will too with the PS2. It just takes time.
Oh, and by the way, a PS2 quality PC would cost £4000+, so be thankful
Cyclone wrote:
> 6 stunning games. Huh. I must not be able to count.
It's true.
It had lots of 'good games', but only 6 'stunning' games.
> 6 stunning games. Huh. I must not be able to count.
It's true.
It had lots of 'good games', but only 6 'stunning' games.
Page: