The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Not only that, but you can't just compare the clock speed of a PC's CPU against a PS2 as a whole. What about memory, graphics card, etc. ? Obviously a 2Ghz PC with 1/2Gig of RAM is going to be better (with texture storage as an example) than one with 64Mb. There's more to a PC's architecture than it's CPU. It's like saying one car is better than another, on the power of it's engine alone.
I dont think you can compare a PC to PS2 at all. The systems are completely different as a PC is a machine that runs databases, wordprocessors, games e.tc and PS2 is a games console.
Quake 3 runs fine on my K6-350 with 192mb of RAM and a 32mb ATI Rage graphics card. PC processors are designed to run everything from games to simple wordprocessor. When you play a PC game you run it under Windows which needs more power. The Geforce graphics cards are of course excellent and are the best for a home PC. But the PS2 has a completely different type of system. Even with all the power of the modern day PC, I still feel that MGS2 and GT3 out perform any PC game to date. PC games can look sharper and more clearer as they can run in very high res. I think a 2ghz PC will outperform a PS2 with the right graphics card but if it was a 2ghz with a rubbish 8mb graphics card then no it wouldnt.
Quake 3 runs fine on my K6-350 with 192mb of RAM and a 32mb ATI Rage graphics card. PC processors are designed to run everything from games to simple wordprocessor. When you play a PC game you run it under Windows which needs more power. The Geforce graphics cards are of course excellent and are the best for a home PC. But the PS2 has a completely different type of system. Even with all the power of the modern day PC, I still feel that MGS2 and GT3 out perform any PC game to date. PC games can look sharper and more clearer as they can run in very high res. I think a 2ghz PC will outperform a PS2 with the right graphics card but if it was a 2ghz with a rubbish 8mb graphics card then no it wouldnt.
Advances in programming are not keeping up with the advances in technology. The PC/PS2 argument is an unfair one, there are too many sides to it to come up with any real conclusions. No-one will ever agree on what is the best format, just the one they prefer to play games on.
The first games on the PS2 were never going to realise it's true potential. What they needed to do was provide gamers with something they could not get on a Playstation. Although early attempts have mainly been graphical updates, this together with DVD capabilities has been enough to shift 10 million PS2s around the world - outstripping sales of the original Playstation after the same time period.
The games in development are beginning to show other advances - like MGS2, Dark Cloud, The Getaway etc. You must remember the time it took to release any groundbreaking titles on all oher consoles before it.
PC gaming has similar limitations. Whilst the top spec PCs are capable of outdoing what can be done on a PS2, software companies cannot realise this power because the market limits them. If you look at the new releases, all you need is a basic 233mhz processer and limited RAM to run them. If games pushed PCs to their limit the market wouldn't be big enough for companies to recoup development costs.
With the PS2, development costs of games are bound to be in companies minds when considering release dates. After all, when someone buys a console some 3 years after release, they aren't going to buy games that are 2-3 years old when the market has grown to huge proportions as with the Playstation. The releases of the costly developed games are not going to be released until tht country's market is big enough.
The long term future of the PS2 is assured, and owners will be rewarded with the games they really want to see in time. For the time being, SSX, Timesplitters, Shadow of Memories, Quake III etc are enough to keep us going. While we crave more games, we don't want to see the shops saturated with awful games such as the Playstation suffers. The N64 got this side of things right, but the poor marketing and pricing meant it couldn't recapture the Playstation market. The release of the X-Box and Gamecube are vital to the competition meaning higher game standards.
In the meantime people will have to make their own decisions on which platform to use and be happy with it.
The first games on the PS2 were never going to realise it's true potential. What they needed to do was provide gamers with something they could not get on a Playstation. Although early attempts have mainly been graphical updates, this together with DVD capabilities has been enough to shift 10 million PS2s around the world - outstripping sales of the original Playstation after the same time period.
The games in development are beginning to show other advances - like MGS2, Dark Cloud, The Getaway etc. You must remember the time it took to release any groundbreaking titles on all oher consoles before it.
PC gaming has similar limitations. Whilst the top spec PCs are capable of outdoing what can be done on a PS2, software companies cannot realise this power because the market limits them. If you look at the new releases, all you need is a basic 233mhz processer and limited RAM to run them. If games pushed PCs to their limit the market wouldn't be big enough for companies to recoup development costs.
With the PS2, development costs of games are bound to be in companies minds when considering release dates. After all, when someone buys a console some 3 years after release, they aren't going to buy games that are 2-3 years old when the market has grown to huge proportions as with the Playstation. The releases of the costly developed games are not going to be released until tht country's market is big enough.
The long term future of the PS2 is assured, and owners will be rewarded with the games they really want to see in time. For the time being, SSX, Timesplitters, Shadow of Memories, Quake III etc are enough to keep us going. While we crave more games, we don't want to see the shops saturated with awful games such as the Playstation suffers. The N64 got this side of things right, but the poor marketing and pricing meant it couldn't recapture the Playstation market. The release of the X-Box and Gamecube are vital to the competition meaning higher game standards.
In the meantime people will have to make their own decisions on which platform to use and be happy with it.
Now this is the kind of newbie that I appreciate - and not simply because he is (or appears to be) a PS2 fan.
Balanced argument and some decent reasoning, not blindly singing the PS2's praises, but recognising and accepting some of the problems, and thankfully not resorting to dissing other platforms.
Welcome, Piero.
> Although early attempts have mainly been graphical
> updates, this together with DVD capabilities has been
> enough to shift 10 million PS2s around the world -
> outstripping sales of the original Playstation after
> the same time period.
> Whilst the top spec PCs are capable of outdoing what can be
> done on a PS2, software companies cannot realise this power
> because the market limits them. If you look at the new
> releases, all you need is a basic 233mhz processer and
> limited RAM to run them. If games pushed PCs to their
> limit the market wouldn't be big enough for companies
> to recoup development costs
Very good points. In theory, *any* console has the potential to provide a much larger market for a games company than the PC. With 10 million plus PS2's sold (but it could be any console platform), that is a potential 10 million sales of a game, because everyone's machine will run that software. Once a product is debugged, that is it - you don't need to test for compatability with different components.
While there are far more PC's in the world than consoles, the market for the latest ground-breaking PC game is likely to be limited by any number of factors, not least of which are processor speed and graphics capability. Neither of these can be assumed by the developer to be at a minimum level. As you correctly say, any game pushing to the very limits of PC technology automatically has a severely limited audience.
While there are a number of methods utilised on the PC to improve the situation (DirectX, standardisation of drivers etc.), the elimination of these issues is still some way from being acheived, as is bringing PC gaming to anywhere near the level of reliability of consoles.
I recently had to invest in a new graphics card for my PC (far from top-spec, but still costing around £100) because a number of games that I wanted to play simply would not run on my old card; this was despite (a) it supposedly being DirectX compatible, (b) me having the latest version of DirectX, and (c) other games with the same requirements working perfectly.
Assuming that the 'average' console life these days is four to five years, devlopers have that much time to learn how to coax the very best out of the hardware; on the PC, they need to contend with encompassing new hardware at least every six months or so. At the same time, they're trying not to alienate too many owners of older hardware, and thus reducing their sales even further.
So, in five years time, I'll be getting better games out of the same console, while probably looking at at least a third or fourth PC upgrade.
Still - I suppose that's the price of progress!
Balanced argument and some decent reasoning, not blindly singing the PS2's praises, but recognising and accepting some of the problems, and thankfully not resorting to dissing other platforms.
Welcome, Piero.
> Although early attempts have mainly been graphical
> updates, this together with DVD capabilities has been
> enough to shift 10 million PS2s around the world -
> outstripping sales of the original Playstation after
> the same time period.
> Whilst the top spec PCs are capable of outdoing what can be
> done on a PS2, software companies cannot realise this power
> because the market limits them. If you look at the new
> releases, all you need is a basic 233mhz processer and
> limited RAM to run them. If games pushed PCs to their
> limit the market wouldn't be big enough for companies
> to recoup development costs
Very good points. In theory, *any* console has the potential to provide a much larger market for a games company than the PC. With 10 million plus PS2's sold (but it could be any console platform), that is a potential 10 million sales of a game, because everyone's machine will run that software. Once a product is debugged, that is it - you don't need to test for compatability with different components.
While there are far more PC's in the world than consoles, the market for the latest ground-breaking PC game is likely to be limited by any number of factors, not least of which are processor speed and graphics capability. Neither of these can be assumed by the developer to be at a minimum level. As you correctly say, any game pushing to the very limits of PC technology automatically has a severely limited audience.
While there are a number of methods utilised on the PC to improve the situation (DirectX, standardisation of drivers etc.), the elimination of these issues is still some way from being acheived, as is bringing PC gaming to anywhere near the level of reliability of consoles.
I recently had to invest in a new graphics card for my PC (far from top-spec, but still costing around £100) because a number of games that I wanted to play simply would not run on my old card; this was despite (a) it supposedly being DirectX compatible, (b) me having the latest version of DirectX, and (c) other games with the same requirements working perfectly.
Assuming that the 'average' console life these days is four to five years, devlopers have that much time to learn how to coax the very best out of the hardware; on the PC, they need to contend with encompassing new hardware at least every six months or so. At the same time, they're trying not to alienate too many owners of older hardware, and thus reducing their sales even further.
So, in five years time, I'll be getting better games out of the same console, while probably looking at at least a third or fourth PC upgrade.
Still - I suppose that's the price of progress!
PieroGas wrote:
>If you look at the new releases, all you need is
> a basic 233mhz processer and limited RAM to run them.
They may just about run but if you are going to play the game you need a decent PC. Mine is a K6-350, 192mb RAM, 32mb ATI Rage graphics card and would be pushed to play the latest games in a decent Resolution and with a decent set of graphics. I can run Unreal Tournament in 800x600 with all the graphics set to high but that is unplayable as it runs at like 10-15 Frames Per Sec. To get a playable setting you need to put the res down or the graphics setting. I tried running UT on a Pentium-233 with 32mb Ram and a 4mb graphics card and it was unplayable as the graphics were crap and it was all jerky.
>If you look at the new releases, all you need is
> a basic 233mhz processer and limited RAM to run them.
They may just about run but if you are going to play the game you need a decent PC. Mine is a K6-350, 192mb RAM, 32mb ATI Rage graphics card and would be pushed to play the latest games in a decent Resolution and with a decent set of graphics. I can run Unreal Tournament in 800x600 with all the graphics set to high but that is unplayable as it runs at like 10-15 Frames Per Sec. To get a playable setting you need to put the res down or the graphics setting. I tried running UT on a Pentium-233 with 32mb Ram and a 4mb graphics card and it was unplayable as the graphics were crap and it was all jerky.
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.
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
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.
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.
Page: