The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
This is just one of those topics... I disagree in most areas, and can`t be bothered to write out everything again.
At the end of the day, it's not the power of the console that will depict the final look of the game. Some Playstation games should still be held with the highest regard in terms of graphical achievement, but are no longer classed as good because they have low resolution and poor pily counts.
In the end, if you want to argue about good graphics on next gen systems, show something better looking than MGS2 and GT3 in terms of graphical effects, animation and poly count, and you can have a prize.
In the end, if you want to argue about good graphics on next gen systems, show something better looking than MGS2 and GT3 in terms of graphical effects, animation and poly count, and you can have a prize.
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.
GT3 - 20 million polys/sec, according to Polyphony Digital and Kazunori Yamauchi, the game's developers.
> 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.
GT3 - 20 million polys/sec, according to Polyphony Digital and Kazunori Yamauchi, the game's developers.
Uncle Albert wrote:
> 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 'proof' is not mine to give - it was in an article in a link posted by Grix, and I *think* it was on cube.ign.com.
I think it went something like this:
According to the specs given to developers by Nintendo, the Cube is capable of approcimately 12 million polys/sec before it starts to impact other areas of processing and causing slowdown. It can do more, but other areas suffer. Basically, with the specs and the architecture, developers know exactly what they can get from each area of the Cube before performance elsewhere is affected.
The last known count that I read regarding PS2 was that GT3 was pushing 20 million polys/sec at a sustained 60fps. The unusual architecture of the PS2 means that the amount of polys/sec is dependent on what's going on elsewhere, and there is no 'set value' provided by Sony to developers.
Gamecube has a faster CPU, but a lower polygon count.
These are not claims I'm pulling out of the air, they are based on articles from the developers which I've read on the net regarding the individual machines. I can't remember URLs as these were some time ago, but they were there for all to see, and there has already been heft discussion on the matter - so no, I can't be asked to go through it all again.
> 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 'proof' is not mine to give - it was in an article in a link posted by Grix, and I *think* it was on cube.ign.com.
I think it went something like this:
According to the specs given to developers by Nintendo, the Cube is capable of approcimately 12 million polys/sec before it starts to impact other areas of processing and causing slowdown. It can do more, but other areas suffer. Basically, with the specs and the architecture, developers know exactly what they can get from each area of the Cube before performance elsewhere is affected.
The last known count that I read regarding PS2 was that GT3 was pushing 20 million polys/sec at a sustained 60fps. The unusual architecture of the PS2 means that the amount of polys/sec is dependent on what's going on elsewhere, and there is no 'set value' provided by Sony to developers.
Gamecube has a faster CPU, but a lower polygon count.
These are not claims I'm pulling out of the air, they are based on articles from the developers which I've read on the net regarding the individual machines. I can't remember URLs as these were some time ago, but they were there for all to see, and there has already been heft discussion on the matter - so no, I can't be asked to go through it all again.
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.
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'.
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.
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?
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.
Page: