The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Firstly I have to say that I'm really disapointed with the PS2 so far and what it has managed to do in more than one year in the European market, it has only one online compatible game and yet no modem and HDD and we still have to pay extra fo this addon. To say the truth it hasnt lived up to the hype, in other words I think Sony ripped many gamers off.
It was supposed to be a powerful console according to hype but even though I knew it wasnt as powerful as X box I always thought that there wouldn't be a big gap between them but not anymore. Also I thought that it was more powerful than the Gamecube but I was also wrong about that look at GC games and you'll see a difference in graphics one reason being that the all GC games are anti - aliased so are X box games. Even comparing Playstation 2 to the Dreamcast its still a disappintment, the fact that some drecast games were made monitor compatible makes the Playstation 2 graphics look like rubbish.
You may argue saying that the Playstation 2 hasnt been on the market as long as the Dreamcast but even with time the Dreamcast went online much faster than the Playstation 2 thats because Sega were serious about online gaming unlike Sony whose plans of going online in Europe still remain as plans, even in some conversions to PAL, Japanese games that were online compatible lost this feature a good example is Capcom VS SNK 2 which really annoyed me even more. Coming back to Dreamcast, it is currently the only console with the most online compatible games.
"And Xbox has a high-profile evangelist in Japan Tomonobu Itagaki, executive officer of Tecmo’s Team Ninja and lead designer of the Dead or Alive series of fighting games.
While Itagaki has remained somewhat silent about GameCube, he has vociferously attacked PlayStation 2, calling it a last generation game console."
Quote from an article in Xbox365
Well I have to say that I agree with this guy, Playstation 2 really isnt a next gen console, I mean what has it got that the Playstation hasnt, well you'll probably say that it can play DVDs but well thats it because in terms of graphics only improvement and nothing revolutionary infact it is the weakest next gen console between the four even though now Sony want you to buy the LCD monitor as they say that games will look much better on it that on TV.
But is that right, to enjoy the console to its full potential you have to keep on buying add ons I think not, if it wasnt there at launch then its not part of the console.
So for a console to be called a next gen console it really has to be very different to the one that came out before it, for example you can call the Gamecube a next gen console because it is using discs instead of cartridges and these disce are unique to this console. But the PS2 its just the same old discs even though now games are on DVD roms but its almost like a PSone only with better graghics.
The online factor is the main reason why these consoles are called next gen consoles so far only the X box and Dreancast have been serious about this and again it annoys me when Sony keeps on saying "oh PS2 is just like a taste of what is to come from the PS3".
If PS3 is going to give gamers what Xbox is doing now then it really wouldnt make it a true competitor to even the Xbox.
Anyway if by the end of this era of gaming the PS2 hasnt got as many onine games as the Xbox after even having more than one year head start, it will be my last console from Sony.
Another reason why I'm disappointed with the PS2 is that when the Dreacast was launched I was able to survive with my PSX until the PS2 came out without a dreacast as there were very many nice games but now it seems that I need an X box and Gamecube to enjoy this generation to the fullest. In other words there are many gamers who wont be very satisfied with only a PS2 until the PS3 so I'm expecting that many gamers will own more that just a PS2 one example is me.
Let the arguments begin....
144
It was supposed to be a powerful console according to hype but even though I knew it wasnt as powerful as X box I always thought that there wouldn't be a big gap between them but not anymore. Also I thought that it was more powerful than the Gamecube but I was also wrong about that look at GC games and you'll see a difference in graphics one reason being that the all GC games are anti - aliased so are X box games. Even comparing Playstation 2 to the Dreamcast its still a disappintment, the fact that some drecast games were made monitor compatible makes the Playstation 2 graphics look like rubbish.
You may argue saying that the Playstation 2 hasnt been on the market as long as the Dreamcast but even with time the Dreamcast went online much faster than the Playstation 2 thats because Sega were serious about online gaming unlike Sony whose plans of going online in Europe still remain as plans, even in some conversions to PAL, Japanese games that were online compatible lost this feature a good example is Capcom VS SNK 2 which really annoyed me even more. Coming back to Dreamcast, it is currently the only console with the most online compatible games.
"And Xbox has a high-profile evangelist in Japan Tomonobu Itagaki, executive officer of Tecmo’s Team Ninja and lead designer of the Dead or Alive series of fighting games.
While Itagaki has remained somewhat silent about GameCube, he has vociferously attacked PlayStation 2, calling it a last generation game console."
Quote from an article in Xbox365
Well I have to say that I agree with this guy, Playstation 2 really isnt a next gen console, I mean what has it got that the Playstation hasnt, well you'll probably say that it can play DVDs but well thats it because in terms of graphics only improvement and nothing revolutionary infact it is the weakest next gen console between the four even though now Sony want you to buy the LCD monitor as they say that games will look much better on it that on TV.
But is that right, to enjoy the console to its full potential you have to keep on buying add ons I think not, if it wasnt there at launch then its not part of the console.
So for a console to be called a next gen console it really has to be very different to the one that came out before it, for example you can call the Gamecube a next gen console because it is using discs instead of cartridges and these disce are unique to this console. But the PS2 its just the same old discs even though now games are on DVD roms but its almost like a PSone only with better graghics.
The online factor is the main reason why these consoles are called next gen consoles so far only the X box and Dreancast have been serious about this and again it annoys me when Sony keeps on saying "oh PS2 is just like a taste of what is to come from the PS3".
If PS3 is going to give gamers what Xbox is doing now then it really wouldnt make it a true competitor to even the Xbox.
Anyway if by the end of this era of gaming the PS2 hasnt got as many onine games as the Xbox after even having more than one year head start, it will be my last console from Sony.
Another reason why I'm disappointed with the PS2 is that when the Dreacast was launched I was able to survive with my PSX until the PS2 came out without a dreacast as there were very many nice games but now it seems that I need an X box and Gamecube to enjoy this generation to the fullest. In other words there are many gamers who wont be very satisfied with only a PS2 until the PS3 so I'm expecting that many gamers will own more that just a PS2 one example is me.
Let the arguments begin....
144
Page:
Firstly I have to say that I'm really disapointed with the PS2 so far and what it has managed to do in more than one year in the European market, it has only one online compatible game and yet no modem and HDD and we still have to pay extra fo this addon. To say the truth it hasnt lived up to the hype, in other words I think Sony ripped many gamers off.
It was supposed to be a powerful console according to hype but even though I knew it wasnt as powerful as X box I always thought that there wouldn't be a big gap between them but not anymore. Also I thought that it was more powerful than the Gamecube but I was also wrong about that look at GC games and you'll see a difference in graphics one reason being that the all GC games are anti - aliased so are X box games. Even comparing Playstation 2 to the Dreamcast its still a disappintment, the fact that some drecast games were made monitor compatible makes the Playstation 2 graphics look like rubbish.
You may argue saying that the Playstation 2 hasnt been on the market as long as the Dreamcast but even with time the Dreamcast went online much faster than the Playstation 2 thats because Sega were serious about online gaming unlike Sony whose plans of going online in Europe still remain as plans, even in some conversions to PAL, Japanese games that were online compatible lost this feature a good example is Capcom VS SNK 2 which really annoyed me even more. Coming back to Dreamcast, it is currently the only console with the most online compatible games.
"And Xbox has a high-profile evangelist in Japan Tomonobu Itagaki, executive officer of Tecmo’s Team Ninja and lead designer of the Dead or Alive series of fighting games.
While Itagaki has remained somewhat silent about GameCube, he has vociferously attacked PlayStation 2, calling it a last generation game console."
Quote from an article in Xbox365
Well I have to say that I agree with this guy, Playstation 2 really isnt a next gen console, I mean what has it got that the Playstation hasnt, well you'll probably say that it can play DVDs but well thats it because in terms of graphics only improvement and nothing revolutionary infact it is the weakest next gen console between the four even though now Sony want you to buy the LCD monitor as they say that games will look much better on it that on TV.
But is that right, to enjoy the console to its full potential you have to keep on buying add ons I think not, if it wasnt there at launch then its not part of the console.
So for a console to be called a next gen console it really has to be very different to the one that came out before it, for example you can call the Gamecube a next gen console because it is using discs instead of cartridges and these disce are unique to this console. But the PS2 its just the same old discs even though now games are on DVD roms but its almost like a PSone only with better graghics.
The online factor is the main reason why these consoles are called next gen consoles so far only the X box and Dreancast have been serious about this and again it annoys me when Sony keeps on saying "oh PS2 is just like a taste of what is to come from the PS3".
If PS3 is going to give gamers what Xbox is doing now then it really wouldnt make it a true competitor to even the Xbox.
Anyway if by the end of this era of gaming the PS2 hasnt got as many onine games as the Xbox after even having more than one year head start, it will be my last console from Sony.
Another reason why I'm disappointed with the PS2 is that when the Dreacast was launched I was able to survive with my PSX until the PS2 came out without a dreacast as there were very many nice games but now it seems that I need an X box and Gamecube to enjoy this generation to the fullest. In other words there are many gamers who wont be very satisfied with only a PS2 until the PS3 so I'm expecting that many gamers will own more that just a PS2 one example is me.
Let the arguments begin....
144
It was supposed to be a powerful console according to hype but even though I knew it wasnt as powerful as X box I always thought that there wouldn't be a big gap between them but not anymore. Also I thought that it was more powerful than the Gamecube but I was also wrong about that look at GC games and you'll see a difference in graphics one reason being that the all GC games are anti - aliased so are X box games. Even comparing Playstation 2 to the Dreamcast its still a disappintment, the fact that some drecast games were made monitor compatible makes the Playstation 2 graphics look like rubbish.
You may argue saying that the Playstation 2 hasnt been on the market as long as the Dreamcast but even with time the Dreamcast went online much faster than the Playstation 2 thats because Sega were serious about online gaming unlike Sony whose plans of going online in Europe still remain as plans, even in some conversions to PAL, Japanese games that were online compatible lost this feature a good example is Capcom VS SNK 2 which really annoyed me even more. Coming back to Dreamcast, it is currently the only console with the most online compatible games.
"And Xbox has a high-profile evangelist in Japan Tomonobu Itagaki, executive officer of Tecmo’s Team Ninja and lead designer of the Dead or Alive series of fighting games.
While Itagaki has remained somewhat silent about GameCube, he has vociferously attacked PlayStation 2, calling it a last generation game console."
Quote from an article in Xbox365
Well I have to say that I agree with this guy, Playstation 2 really isnt a next gen console, I mean what has it got that the Playstation hasnt, well you'll probably say that it can play DVDs but well thats it because in terms of graphics only improvement and nothing revolutionary infact it is the weakest next gen console between the four even though now Sony want you to buy the LCD monitor as they say that games will look much better on it that on TV.
But is that right, to enjoy the console to its full potential you have to keep on buying add ons I think not, if it wasnt there at launch then its not part of the console.
So for a console to be called a next gen console it really has to be very different to the one that came out before it, for example you can call the Gamecube a next gen console because it is using discs instead of cartridges and these disce are unique to this console. But the PS2 its just the same old discs even though now games are on DVD roms but its almost like a PSone only with better graghics.
The online factor is the main reason why these consoles are called next gen consoles so far only the X box and Dreancast have been serious about this and again it annoys me when Sony keeps on saying "oh PS2 is just like a taste of what is to come from the PS3".
If PS3 is going to give gamers what Xbox is doing now then it really wouldnt make it a true competitor to even the Xbox.
Anyway if by the end of this era of gaming the PS2 hasnt got as many onine games as the Xbox after even having more than one year head start, it will be my last console from Sony.
Another reason why I'm disappointed with the PS2 is that when the Dreacast was launched I was able to survive with my PSX until the PS2 came out without a dreacast as there were very many nice games but now it seems that I need an X box and Gamecube to enjoy this generation to the fullest. In other words there are many gamers who wont be very satisfied with only a PS2 until the PS3 so I'm expecting that many gamers will own more that just a PS2 one example is me.
Let the arguments begin....
144
Nice post. I have been bappy with my PS2, but I did think the launch line up was pretty weak and the follow up of games were weak. I think the DC has wonderfull graphics, anybody that looks at Soul Caliber on the DC will know that it beats anything the PS2 has shown so far in the beat-em up genre.
I think that people could be happy with just a PS2. The PS2, GC and X-Box have all got a lot of the same games. All have Tony Hawks 3, SSX Tricky and all are getting Soul Caliber 2. If the exclusive games that are on the GC and X-Box are games you want to play then get one of those aswell or get rid of the PS2.
The PS2 is a good machine, but maybe hasnt lived up to the hype. I still think its a good machine, but its going to have a big fight with the GC and X-Box to keep the NO.1 place.
I think that people could be happy with just a PS2. The PS2, GC and X-Box have all got a lot of the same games. All have Tony Hawks 3, SSX Tricky and all are getting Soul Caliber 2. If the exclusive games that are on the GC and X-Box are games you want to play then get one of those aswell or get rid of the PS2.
The PS2 is a good machine, but maybe hasnt lived up to the hype. I still think its a good machine, but its going to have a big fight with the GC and X-Box to keep the NO.1 place.
I will also be owning more than a PS2, but it's not because of anything wrong with the PS2 - it's because the others have games I want to play.
Having said that, there are still actually more forthcoming games I want for PS2 than there are for Xbox and Gamecube combined.
The Cube looks equivalent to the PS2, but in terms of graphics power, PS2 is actually more powerful. The Xbox is more powerful than both, but the gap is not as big as some people would have you believe.
But at the end of the day, appearances aren't everything, and for me the PS2 still offers the best overall selection of software.
PS2 easily qualifies as a next-gen console - but bear in mind that you are comparing machines with the advantage of technology 18-months to two years more in advance of the PS2. I don't think Sony could have afforded to wait any longer and delay PS2, as PS1 was beginning to look dated. However, if they had delayed and were launching at the same time as Gamecube and Xbox, you could pretty much guarantee that things would be different.
Sony certainly aren't being left behind - just check sales figures for pre-Christmas sales in the US, where all three platforms were readily available and had been for a few months - PS2 sales totalled more than Xbox and Gamecube combined.
Having said that, there are still actually more forthcoming games I want for PS2 than there are for Xbox and Gamecube combined.
The Cube looks equivalent to the PS2, but in terms of graphics power, PS2 is actually more powerful. The Xbox is more powerful than both, but the gap is not as big as some people would have you believe.
But at the end of the day, appearances aren't everything, and for me the PS2 still offers the best overall selection of software.
PS2 easily qualifies as a next-gen console - but bear in mind that you are comparing machines with the advantage of technology 18-months to two years more in advance of the PS2. I don't think Sony could have afforded to wait any longer and delay PS2, as PS1 was beginning to look dated. However, if they had delayed and were launching at the same time as Gamecube and Xbox, you could pretty much guarantee that things would be different.
Sony certainly aren't being left behind - just check sales figures for pre-Christmas sales in the US, where all three platforms were readily available and had been for a few months - PS2 sales totalled more than Xbox and Gamecube combined.
The PS2 has been a disappointment, It was rush released in Japan with the very jagged Ridge Racer 4 and Tekken Tag Tournament and took some time to build the U.K launch line up which wasn't terribly exciting. It sounded the greatest thing ever, An enhanced PS1, digital output to kick my minidisc deck into action, a DVD player (wow) and bringing the playstation games to the next generation. I originally thought the PS2 carry on what the PS1 had but it was a completely different console and unfortunately has lost some of its best games and spoiled others. Most games suffered from jagged edges and weren’t anywhere near as impressive as they should have been, people started to see past the hype and Sony lost many sales. Sony made a combined system which in the past has failed, they made the modem/HDD add-ons which have also failed in the past and also made a system that rock solid to develop for which is why the N64 was always second best to the PS1.
Because of the late releases of the gamecube and Xbox the Playstation 2 has had time to build a vast library of good games and improve it’s middleware. Comparing launch titles to the new releases is like looking at 2 different systems and I see nothing but improvement as time progresses but with the more powerful and developer friendly consoles around the corner (and PS3) the PS2s days are numbered.
I was more keen on the PS1 than I’ve been with any other console and never thought twice about which console I’d choose for the next generation but after the PS2 with it’s occasional good game swarmed by many bad ones I will not be buying Sony’s third. With Resident Evil being Gamecube exclusive and many of the good games on Playstation 2 being multiformat it’s probably wise for me to invest in a gamecube, especially at £150. So in answer to what your saying the PS2 has been a disappointment but looking at the present PS2 it’s a worthy purchase even if you are going for one of the other consoles.
Because of the late releases of the gamecube and Xbox the Playstation 2 has had time to build a vast library of good games and improve it’s middleware. Comparing launch titles to the new releases is like looking at 2 different systems and I see nothing but improvement as time progresses but with the more powerful and developer friendly consoles around the corner (and PS3) the PS2s days are numbered.
I was more keen on the PS1 than I’ve been with any other console and never thought twice about which console I’d choose for the next generation but after the PS2 with it’s occasional good game swarmed by many bad ones I will not be buying Sony’s third. With Resident Evil being Gamecube exclusive and many of the good games on Playstation 2 being multiformat it’s probably wise for me to invest in a gamecube, especially at £150. So in answer to what your saying the PS2 has been a disappointment but looking at the present PS2 it’s a worthy purchase even if you are going for one of the other consoles.
Also it seems like PS2 has disappointed a few developers like Shinji Mikami and Tomonobu Itagaki and these guys can decide which platform their game goes so the Resident Evil move to GC wasnt only because of money so was the move of Dead Or Alive to X box.
One thing is that PS2 is the hardest console of the three to get good results from and also MS are buying most games from these developers at a good price so they probably think that there is no point of struggling with trying to make a good game with PS2 when it will take you less time and effort or if they put in more effort the results are much better plus there getting a huge amount of cash for that.
This could also be the reason why ports to PS2 from other consoles have no difference like Resident Evil Code: Veronica X wasnt different to the DC version but Genma Onimusha is a very different game to Onimusha on PS2, its not just a direct port. Also the first Resident Evil game on GC looks much better than Resident Code Veronica port to the PS2.
Also you'll find that most games that are multi - platform always start as the PS2 games for example Soul Calibur 2 is currently on System 246 which is similar to the Playstation 2 hardware so when the game is ported to the PS2 there will be no difference. So the Soul Calibur 2 team are probably working on the Ps2 version first before any others but apart from the fact that it was a system 246 game but also it looks like it will be easier to port a PS2 game to the other consoles than porting a game from for example the Xbox to PS2.
Thats why the head of team Ninja doesnt want his game on any other console especially the PS2 as it will take more work and his already got some cash from MS to make it an X box exclusive so it would be just a waste of time and money.
Also once a game has started as a Ps2 game it will be easier for developers to port it to the GC and X box and to say the truth the X box is the most port friendly console of them all, so once the developers have ported it they can add a few extras that were not seen on the PS2 version.
Anyways thats my theory on ports but I think its at least 90% right but the bottom line is that there a number of Japanese developers very disappointed with the PS2 and that isnt good because the first chance they'll get to make their game on other platform they will take it.
One thing is that PS2 is the hardest console of the three to get good results from and also MS are buying most games from these developers at a good price so they probably think that there is no point of struggling with trying to make a good game with PS2 when it will take you less time and effort or if they put in more effort the results are much better plus there getting a huge amount of cash for that.
This could also be the reason why ports to PS2 from other consoles have no difference like Resident Evil Code: Veronica X wasnt different to the DC version but Genma Onimusha is a very different game to Onimusha on PS2, its not just a direct port. Also the first Resident Evil game on GC looks much better than Resident Code Veronica port to the PS2.
Also you'll find that most games that are multi - platform always start as the PS2 games for example Soul Calibur 2 is currently on System 246 which is similar to the Playstation 2 hardware so when the game is ported to the PS2 there will be no difference. So the Soul Calibur 2 team are probably working on the Ps2 version first before any others but apart from the fact that it was a system 246 game but also it looks like it will be easier to port a PS2 game to the other consoles than porting a game from for example the Xbox to PS2.
Thats why the head of team Ninja doesnt want his game on any other console especially the PS2 as it will take more work and his already got some cash from MS to make it an X box exclusive so it would be just a waste of time and money.
Also once a game has started as a Ps2 game it will be easier for developers to port it to the GC and X box and to say the truth the X box is the most port friendly console of them all, so once the developers have ported it they can add a few extras that were not seen on the PS2 version.
Anyways thats my theory on ports but I think its at least 90% right but the bottom line is that there a number of Japanese developers very disappointed with the PS2 and that isnt good because the first chance they'll get to make their game on other platform they will take it.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
The Cube looks equivalent to the PS2, but
> in terms of graphics power, PS2 is actually more powerful.
I'd love to see your proof of THAT. Sure, PS2 has two secondary vector units, but surely you don't believe all this poly/sec rubbish do you?
The Cube looks equivalent to the PS2, but
> in terms of graphics power, PS2 is actually more powerful.
I'd love to see your proof of THAT. Sure, PS2 has two secondary vector units, but surely you don't believe all this poly/sec rubbish do you?
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
The Cube looks equivalent to the PS2, but
> in terms of graphics power, PS2 is actually more powerful.
Lies all lies. The gamecube has over 200mhz more than the ps2 of graphical power and also has better polygons per second rate than the ps2. But the ps2 of course is superior in terms of games it has over both the xbox and the gamecube,
Laterz.
The Cube looks equivalent to the PS2, but
> in terms of graphics power, PS2 is actually more powerful.
Lies all lies. The gamecube has over 200mhz more than the ps2 of graphical power and also has better polygons per second rate than the ps2. But the ps2 of course is superior in terms of games it has over both the xbox and the gamecube,
Laterz.
Similarly with the polyogn count of each console it doesn't matter as no game has yet used more than 10 million polygons in a game. Also, (to quote "Bride of Chucky") - 'it is not the size that matters ar**ho*e, it's what you do with it'.
Outlaw_UK wrote:
> Similarly with the polyogn count of each console it doesn't matter as no game
> has yet used more than 10 million polygons in a game.
I agree that polygon count doesnt matter as I think that the cube is more powerful than the PS2 even though the max polygon per second it can take is only 12 million but on the whole it is much more powerful, even the gap between Dreamcast and PS2 isnt that big especially since it can handle anti-aliasing without slow downs plus some games were VGA monitor compatible meaning they looked beautiful like Soul Calibur.
About no game using more than 10 million polys per second your wrong as Gran Turismo uses 20 million per second also most X box games have just too many polygons, my guess is that most of the games have 20 million and more though extermination is crap.
> Similarly with the polyogn count of each console it doesn't matter as no game
> has yet used more than 10 million polygons in a game.
I agree that polygon count doesnt matter as I think that the cube is more powerful than the PS2 even though the max polygon per second it can take is only 12 million but on the whole it is much more powerful, even the gap between Dreamcast and PS2 isnt that big especially since it can handle anti-aliasing without slow downs plus some games were VGA monitor compatible meaning they looked beautiful like Soul Calibur.
About no game using more than 10 million polys per second your wrong as Gran Turismo uses 20 million per second also most X box games have just too many polygons, my guess is that most of the games have 20 million and more though extermination is crap.
Page: