Viewing Thread:
"PLAYSTATION2: The Biggest Disappointment in Gaming History."

Yes you read It right.
Jeez what a serious let down!
Ever since I had my system since the famous Price drop the days of disappointment continued to gain momentum, day after day.
At first I said, hell, not a bad system. But urghh, the 'Supposed' gaming greats really showed what this system is really worth!

Ive quite a healthy selection of Title's now and I have to ask one thing: "Where on earth are all the wonderful games?" "Where on earth is the wonderful Dreamcast beating visuals?"
Yes I have to say Many of the Dreamcasts games surpass anything I have seen on PS2!

Take a look at Skies of Arcadia, wonderful visuals, wonderful game and yet there is nothing of it's type on PS2 a year in!
Sonic Adventure 2 and Even the Shenmue series would put all the PS2 title's to utter shame.
Simply being the reason that we where all promised a 'Super-Duper' visual machine coupled with the oh so supposedly lovely 'Emotion engine', but darn have I saw any evidence of visual splendour! Where Is It?
Even Metal Gear Solid 2 going by the Demo doesn't even surpass the visuals of Shenmue 1 or 2!
And don't argue that It does, because I have the games and It doesn't!! Full stop!!. MGS2 Demo is good yes, but weren't we expected better from the Great PS2?

And thats just the visual side that Disappoints, theres the problem with the 'oh so many great AAA games' too.
Ive my fair share of the supposed PS2 greats and boy have I grown tired of them! I didn't at first mind you, but then I realised, 'Dreamcast could do all that! But with the PS2 We where promised better'!
And so we where!. I know what I'm talking about too, Im a true PS Fan with a Gigantic library to put many to shame.

On the let down's, one example Iv'e seen In recent days Is Crash Bandicoot on PS2, to be totally honest I didn't see much difference in this game from It's PS counterpart!
Why Is this? Come on PS2 Developers! give us something with a bit of oomph!!, give us what we where promised!!, visuals in next gen style!!, GTA3 was recently a prime example too of great gameplay but lacking in the promised Next Gen Visuals.

And you know what? Can you really blame Sony giving a statement in releasing a successor to the PS2 within 2 years? After seeing the visual might and technology of Gamecube and X-box?
Who can blame them, In my opinion, the PS2 is a BIG let down and thats that, Iv'e changed my opinion yes, but then I have givin the system long enough to prove its worth and It hasn't!
(I'm expecting to see the Zealot's quoting part's word for word, yawn!)

Wave Race: Blue Storm. Also, I think they're just sayin they used 60%.

Remember how the PlayStation graphics improved over time?? If the PS2 only used 60% of the power on MGS2, then in a few years time we could see what you seem to be 'expecting.'

And the GC's graphics only look better on cartoonie games like Luigi's Mansion, because the PS2 doesn't really have anything that can compare to it (yet.)

I'd like to see a realistic game on the GameCube that can easily beat MGS2 in graphically ability.

And I've played Shenmue, and the graphics are not better. They may not even be the same, I thought the characters in MGS2 looked far better.

You were expecting too much, it's from the people that brought you playstation remember.

There's only one thing dissapointing about the PS2 and thats the anti analysing, it sucks, the steps in dark cloud I can't tell if they're going up or sideways but Other than that it's pretty good.

WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> RiCkOsS wrote:
> But when you have games like GTA3 you don't need
> visuals
> for a brilliant game.

And apart from that, GTA3's grphics have
> their own style. They've been designed with a cartoony realism that fits with
> the style of the game.

In the same way that Zelda on the Gamecube looks like
> a backward step from the N64 versions.

I feel honoured, Wookiee quoted my message :D :D :D

I have to say that, generally, I'm happy with my purchase of a PS2. SR's fanatasitc deals and prices had something to do with that.

I got the GT3 Pack because I love driving games, but I've hardly played any of the GT mode, I stick to the arcade mode. Why? Simply because in arcade mode, I can jump straight in and use the S class cars.

Is there anyone (be honest now!) found it fun to race in a Lupo race where the top speeds of the cars are 80KM/h? It was SO BORING. I really can't be bothered to do another lap of the Yaris race, where every car is supposed to be the same, yet they are some 30KM/h faster than me in a straigh line.

This, for me, isn't fun.

Yes the game looks gorgeous, and yes, it is fun - when you're tearing the track up in a Dodge Viper (or similar powered car). If I wanted to drive a Yaris I'd go out and buy one. But I don't, so I don't.

I played a bit of M:SR on my DC last night. Damn! I spent an hour just driving round the same track in time trial mode. It was fun to play, the handling was slightly more arcade-y and I could get a high powered car right away.

I think the saving grace of the PS2 is the unknown games. The titles like GTA3, which had NO hype at all, Silent Hill 2 - little advertising, only people who were really into their games would know about this title. The same goes for Pro Evo Soccer.

All the "big name" games, seem to have left a little to be desired. GT3, Smackdown 3 (probably the two biggest) don't really seem to have lived up to hype.

But then, does ANY game live up to hype? Especially the amount of pressure put on those two titles by magazines.

I would have thought that it would be better to not reveal anything about your game. That way, people have nothing to compare it to. It can just turn up, like GTA3 did, and have thousands of people going "WOW!".

Rather than GT3 which seemed to have thousands of people going "Well, it *looks* good....".

Sega did put a playable console cabinet in every games shop in the country. People could see games like Crazy Taxi, Res Evil Code Veronica & Shenmue in action. So I said poor marketing, but was it really? They attempted to market their product at the source. But sadly, most had their PSone blinkers on.

Nomad_Soul wrote:
> Forget the poor marketing, forget the initial internet
> problems, the DC was well ahead of its time, and
> sadly most chose to neglect it in favour of waiting for the over-hyped PS2.


The thing is, you *can't* forget the poor marketing etc., because that is probably the largest single reason that people decided to wait for the PS2.

Those already into videogames will hae known what each was capable of and made their choice accordingly. The hype was all within the industry. There was no general publicity for PS2 before its launch, so Sega had every opportunity to tempt the neutral, undecided members of the public. But they failed miserably to take that opportunity.

Sega's poor marketing failed to capture the audience, and when Sony began to advertise the PS2, those neutrals thought "Ooh, I'll have one of those!" because they barely knew of the Dreamcast's existence.

And yet again I have to ask: If Sega are THAT good, they wouldn't have had any problem shifting millions of machines and competing properly with the PS2, whether it was over-hyped or not.

Maybe we should consider the possibility that, quite simply, most people don't actually find Sega *that* good?

I've said this so many times that I'm sick of it, but while I used to love Sega's arcade games, as I've grown older, I've found the majority of their titles shallow and short-lived, simply because of their arcade roots. They're designed to be played in quick-fix bursts on arcade machines, and don't translate that well to home systems, where - with all the time in the world to play them - the addiction fades fairly quickly.

I've nothing against the PS2. But what I still can't get over is how the weak as pish PSone out sold the Dreamcast. In video game terms - it's a tavesty!

I'm currently playing the astounding Shenmue 2, and as I'm playing it I keep thinking: how the hell did this console fail?

Forget the poor marketing, forget the initial internet problems, the DC was well ahead of its time, and sadly most chose to neglect it in favour of waiting for the over-hyped PS2.

RiCkOsS wrote:
> But when you have games like GTA3 you don't need visuals
> for a brilliant game.

And apart from that, GTA3's grphics have their own style. They've been designed with a cartoony realism that fits with the style of the game.

In the same way that Zelda on the Gamecube looks like a backward step from the N64 versions.