Viewing Thread:
"Good and Bad on the PS2"

What are your good and bad points about the Playstation 2

Good

>Plays and enhances playstation 1 games
>Plays cd's with digital out to mini disc and dolby 5:1
>Plays DVD's with high quality and supports nearly every feature.
>Can store playstation saves on the PS2 8 meg memory card
>Dual shock 2 analog is great on the buttons
>Xbox and gamecube are coming which means competition and thats good because they work hard like the mega drive and snes they were both great cus they were fighting against each other unlike windows which has no competion and can be as crap as it wants to be.
>good future with the hard drive and usb harware
>Better than all the rest(excluding the Dreamcast)

Bad
>Cost £300
>If your using a square television with no aspect ratio adjustment, when your watching a widescreen version film it will be squashed and they look very very thin.so you have to look if it will be alright with your TV.
>Some games don't work very well on the PS2
>nearly all the good games are still in development.
>Some games(won't mention which ones) are giving the playstation 2 a bad name with the awful anti analising (squared edges)


what are your thoughts?

devo wrote:
> I'm having problems getting out of my contract. You know how it is.

Yeah. S'pose when you've done the deal theres not much ya can do [:@)

residentevilfan wrote:
but munch's oddysee has drifted to the xbox because of the anti analising,

Actually I believe Munch's Oddysee is on the X-Box because Microsoft offered the large amounts of cash to do so!

I'm having problems getting out of my contract. You know how it is.

Hey Devo how come ya haven't changed ya sponsor yet.

I sometimes think too much is made out of the anti-aliasing issue. If you look back at the early PS1 games, a lot of them had problems with polygons not being patched together correctly (the original Wipeout is a good example). But this was resolved later on in software, which I'm sure will be the case for the aliasing on the PS2. Those developers who want the super smooth look will no doubt invest time and resources into overcoming jaggies. And those who want to concentrate more on the gameplay, may well leave it alone.

Its nat a big problem to fix but they have to fix it right. It can take up alot of resources of the PS2 if not done right. Games like MGS2 and GT3 will have all anti-aliasing but its mainly the launch games that suffered. DOnt forget the PS2 is alot different to prgram for than any other console, it will take time to get the effects right. Look how the graphics have moved on from the Playstation launch games to the current games for the PS1. If you compare Tekken 1 to Tekken 3 there is alot of graphical improvements to make.

<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>

I started this discussion just to point out to the people that the anti analising is not a big problem to fix on the PS2 so why have problems if you don't have to.now everyone keeps replying to me and saying gameplay is the most important thing EVER.i know it flipping is why do you think i still play on my NES because it has some of the best platform games avilable.now i'm going to say this ONLY ONCE MORE.
I AM NOT AGAINST BAD GRAPHICS>>> glad i could clear that up.now unless you have anything not regarding that issue then write about it but if you don't have anything good to say then DON'T

This is kinnda annoyin me now so lets get it straight.
The GRAPHICS
This is arguably the most important thing in a game then again the reason this long discussion is going on is because no-one knows what they like more. I am attracted by graphics from final fantasy and I suppose it means more to me to have the best graphical capabilities possible. But there are some people that are not bothered. The ps2 however is the console to make everyone happy because it has games such as Final fantasy 10 and Metal GEar Solid Two which introduce amazing , wonderful excellent graphics but at the same time have wonderful,amazingly techinallly enhanced gameplay.
The GAMEPLAY
This is brought to excellency by games such as Command and Conquer, rocks and Gems, Tetris and Champiopnship manager 2001. They don't have good graphics and they don't stretch the console capabilities but they are fun to play and will keep you busy for a long time. On the ps2 there's Aqua Aqua Wetrix 2 which is a genius puzzle game with dehlightful graphics and longitivity.
BOTH
As i have mentioned havingh both exellent graphics and gameplay(and by good gameplay i mean being able to control your charcter in 3rd person mode easily)You have the perfect game which is why results provedevery ps2 owner(thats sane) will buy Metal gear solid 2. Lets not talk about this stupid argument anymore and enjoy the ps2 forum forgetting this discussion ever happened.
KHAzar

Tricky subject, this graphics vs gameplay one. There is no real answer as history shows that either can provide huge sales. For example, look at Tetris - the graphics could probably have been produced on a Sinclair Spectrum, but the gameplay is so addictive and universally highly thought of that it will sell on whatever platform it is released (beware the PS2 version due in the summer). On the other side of the coin there are games such as Zone of the Enders (sorry - I know there a lot of fans of this game on this site)and Shadow of Memories which have the super slick graphics and presentation, but the gameplay is severely limited - the majority of battles in ZOE can be won by bashing two buttons (sorry again if you feel this is controversial, but it's only my opinion), and SoM limits your interaction in the game (although possibly my favourite release so far).
What is probably more relevant in this discussion is value for money. Both PS2 titles above have been criticised in some form for their ease of completion. ZOE obviously had the playable MGS2 demo (good marketing Konami), and a two player option which adds to the value, while SoM had 5 (I think) different endings. Those of you who trade in games could expect to get £20 back on either of these at the current rates. So, is £10-20 to have these games for a couple of months bad value? Judging by video store rental costs, then no. With a game like Tetris, which in many forms has no real ending and multiplayer options giving it a much longer gaming life, if you tried to trade it in after 9-12 months the value would be about £5.
With either option, value for money could be said to be achieved. The real losers are people who want to build large collections of games and see the value of their collection deteriorate month by month.
I have been in this situation in the past with my N64, where I built up a collection of about 60 games. I decided that there was little point in keeping them all because I had either completed or never played them. It was soul destroying to see the value of 8 good games of the past to equal 1 new game. I certainly won't be doing this with my PS2 games. Yes there are some that will stay with me for a long time because of their plus points (e.g. multiplayer on Timesplitters), but I will be keeping the collection down to minimum and keep up with the new purchases at lower cost by trading.
What you must do is be certain of your gaming choice. Read as many reviews as you can before deciding - and never buy a game that is released before being reviewed.
Finally, a little bit of advice - shop around for best prices on trade ins. It sometimes seems easier to go into your local EB store, but they tend to only give quarter value of the current selling price (unless you have loyalty coupons). Many of the independent stores offer much more.

Good point. But i have to admit i tend to favour the graphics. If final fantasy came out with bad graphics i would be majorly dissapointed. Ok, if the graphics are bad then the gameplay is sometimes good but take tank racer bad graphics and bad gamplay. This all came out wrong so I apologise if it doesn't make sense but 2,500 words and i have the word regular under my name. But what meant to come ou is that everyone is ultimately put off by bad graphics.