PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: RichG on September 07, 2001, 01:44:59 PM
-
This probably cause quite a stir I just hope the people who want to discuss want to answer and not the flamers.
Anyway its coming up to a year that the PS2 has been launched in English speaking countries, more so in Japan. Do the graphics impress you ?
For me they don\'t. It seems a lot of games hardly look any better than PS1 counterparts. Also the framerate for these horried games are unacceptable.
With the exceptions of GT3 and MGS2 (only one of them released) I haven\'t really been impressed at all.
Are up and coming games impressing you? I personally have noticed a lot of blurred and low resolution textures in these new and upcoming games. Screenshot quality aside they don\'t seem very sharp.
I\'ve recently been playing Shenmue on the DC. Even though im only using a RF cable its blowing away anything the PS2 has done.
I know its hard to program for, and I hope things will get better but will they really?
PS - Please no flamers - also yeah I know its all about gameplay, but if thats so true then why didn\'t you just get a emulator and emulate old games (the 1000s of ones you have never played).
PPS - Not that I should have to justify myself, but im not a fanboy of any console. I own lots of consoles and get consoles for games not for company loyalty.
Hope to get some good replies.
-
Nobody needs to flame you, it is your opinion.
these are my top picks for graphical games that impress.
MGS2
DMC
GT3
Jak/Daxter
ICO
TMB
FFX
I\'m sure i forgot a couple.
My choices are pretty biased, i guess, most of these games will be on everyone’s top 5 list.
hang in there RichGUK, it is bound to get better, and if not, i\'m sure it can\'t get worse. :laughing:
-
RichGUK, I see where you coming from. My kids have a Dreamcast and the some of the game does look better in some ways. Give the PS2 some time it will come soon. :D
-
Are we thinking about the same PS2? I am very impressed with the games we have seen so far. The launch games were great IMO (TTT, DOA2:HC, SSX, Timesplitters). Then there was a big drout of great games, but the games that came after that made up for it (Red Faction, Dark Cloud, Twisted Metal Black, GT3). The rest of this year is going to be amazing. (MGS2, Jak and Daxter, ICO, Baldur\'s Gate: DA, GTA3, Devil May Cry, and more I\'m sure others will list).
The PS2 rocks, and it\'s only going to get better. With its 15 million userbase, it is going to be a hard console to catch up to. I think it will dominate to the same degree that the PSX did.
-
Your an absolute ediot if u think PS2 graphics are almost the same as PS1.
Give a good reason before u flame the PS2.
GT3 on PS2 show what the PS2 is capable of. GT3 is the best looking game on any console or PC. I havent seen such top quality reflection on even high end PC.
Enuff said.
Get Lost
-
ok, your comparison between shenmue and some of the crap ps2 titles it lame. its liek comparing the best one one console, to the worst on another.
shenmue= best on DC.
gt3= best on ps2.
compare those, and then youll think right. your comparison is off.
i think the graphics have come a long way. if you think they look like psx graphics, go out and buy a couple of games for psx, or even better rent them.
the framerates are fine for us in the usa. i think the pal version ps2\'s got screwed this year.
but really. if you pay close attention, ps2 can push 6+ times the polys and has around 6 times better graphics technically.
but the thing is, do you see the difference? it is mostly up to the programmers. the people who did shenmue did it really well. they used poly\'s efficently. many programmers for ps2 are just trying to figure out how to pull poly\'s outta the system. once they figure that out, they can do things like what pholphony did with gt3. use the vector units to their advantage... ya know, the whole bit.
i think the best is yet to come, and i am not dissapointed. look at the step from psxgames to ps2 games, and youll see what i mean.
edit:
Your an absolute ediot if u think PS2 graphics are almost the same as PS1.
Give a good reason before u flame the PS2.
GT3 on PS2 show what the PS2 is capable of. GT3 is the best looking game on any console or PC. I havent seen such top quality reflection on even high end PC.
Enuff said.
Get Lost
do not flame him for stating his opinion. he said that he just wanted a discussion, not a flame war. he did not flame anything. he just said what he thought.
so discuss, do not flame.
-
Gt3 and Mgs2 aren\'t the only good looking games on PS2.I know that\'s your opinion but I think your graphic standards are a bit high RichGUk.
Jak And Daxter
ICO
Silent Hill 2
Devil May Cry
Splashdown
Baldur\'s Gate: DA
Final Fantasy X
TTT
Madden
Ridge Racer V
Those are just a few of the games that are very impressive IMO.Ps2 has the power to compete with GC and Xbox .So far all of the systems have impressive games IMO.
But graphic don\'t really matter if the gameplay sucks. Remember IT\'S ALL ABOUT THE GAMEPLAY....Sucka
-
Ok ill reply to these first wave of reponses, oh yeah thanks for the cool replies. :)
TOXICAL
Ok thats cool, but in England one of those games is released the rest are coming out later on. Waitings fine, its just its been way over a year in Japan yet and I don\'t feel we have even past the already dead Dreamcast.
PSTWO
Yeah im hoping. The DC is pretty impressive for graphics.
IRONFIST
Well its your opinion but you must completly think differently to me where graphics are concerned. Ok fair enough TTT and DOA2:HC were decent... but SSX - slows down on every corner thats no where acceptable and as for Timesplitters the game has very bland graphics. I remember the developers commenting on how they had to keep the graphics to a minimum to keep the game speed high. All good games but for graphics I would only say that TTT impressed me.
Ok the next games improved I guess. Red Faction still very basic. I mean the likes of Kingpin and Half Life on the PC looks as good and them games really are getting dated. Not to mention the slowdown in RF too. In my opinion Dark Cloud doens\'t look *too* great although the frame rate rocked. Yep agreed GT3 the first decent looking game.
As for the next lot there coming up later on. Also not all of them are ace GTA3 in action from the footage on PSW isn\'t great at all. Its slow and to be honest its quiet ugly.
Yeah I never doubted the fact that it will do well. I think your justifying the PS2 as a gaming machine with good games. For graphics alone though I would only really say that TTT and GT3 were good from your list.
One other thing to add is that GT3 although looked good was heralded as an amazing achievment. Shouldn\'t this be the norm for PS2 graphics. The current norm is below the DC\'s norm in my opinion.
Ok keep the good replies coming. :)
-
Whoa 3 new replies and the first bad one...
NEOSTARSX
"Your an absolute ediot" - OK I won\'t even bother replying to this to avoid any arguments in the thread. I know how these things can quickly change.
FALCON4
Well yeah I wasn\'t directly comparing them as such. Shenmue was just an example of one of the *many* good looking DC games.
Yeah programmers make a lot of difference. That is proven by looking at GT3 compared to the other PS2 titles. We should have seen more of these GT3 type titles by now though?
GAMES
OK cool but once again we are back to the games which aren\'t released and the likes of RRV and Maddan are in a different league to GT3. Although TTT is nice but i\'ve already said that.
OK cool keep them replies coming - the good ones not the "edoit" ones please. :laughing:
-
Originally posted by RichGUK
Whoa 3 new replies and the first bad one...
FALCON4
Well yeah I wasn\'t directly comparing them as such. Shenmue was just an example of one of the *many* good looking DC games.
Yeah programmers make a lot of difference. That is proven by looking at GT3 compared to the other PS2 titles. We should have seen more of these GT3 type titles by now though?
ok well i got the idiot when i edited my post, but tell me what DC games also look very good? crazy taxi was nto very well done, nba2k1 was beaten my nba street, nfl2k1 was beaten by madden 2001.
i dont see any others that would compare...
-
Originally posted by Falcon4
ok well i got the idiot when i edited my post, but tell me what DC games also look very good? crazy taxi was nto very well done, nba2k1 was beaten my nba street, nfl2k1 was beaten by madden 2001.
i dont see any others that would compare...
Yeah I agree about Crazy Taxi. Graphics wise its fairly poor.
Ok lets see well these things are hard to list but off the top of my head, Sonic Adventure (2), MSR, Virtua Tennis, Jet Grind Radio. Can\'t think of any others at this moment. Not a big list there but they looked very good.
Its as a whole though. Prehaps Shemue should be put up against GT3. However as a whole it seems that the DC games have been more sharp and better looking than PS2. Also remember that although DC has lived longer its also dated technology compared to PS2. Another point worth mentioning is that the DC didn\'t live that long. Give the PS2 a bit longer and in terms of years it will have suppased the DC. Then that will elimate any excuse of it takes time to get used to programming consoles - although I understand that consoles have different learning curves but when the average life of a console is 5 years it shouldn\'t take any longer than 2 years to be seeing really good games.
Although it seems that this thread is turning into a PS2 vs DC graphics. I was only using DC as an example for my statement that the PS2 graphics aren\'t great. Even if they were better they should be significantly better considering - newer console, newer technology, DC has been dead since about march.
-
Originally posted by Falcon4
ok well i got the idiot when i edited my post, but tell me what DC games also look very good? crazy taxi was nto very well done, nba2k1 was beaten my nba street, nfl2k1 was beaten by madden 2001.
i dont see any others that would compare...
...I don\'t either.Shenmue is about the only game that could really compare to the Ps2 games (It was in development for 5 years)lately,Ps2 is going to get alot better in graphic,by the end of this year I promise you that you\'ll like the PS2 alot better;)
-
Originally posted by RichGUK
Yeah I agree about Crazy Taxi. Graphics wise its fairly poor.
Ok lets see well these things are hard to list but off the top of my head, Sonic Adventure (2), MSR, Virtua Tennis, Jet Grind Radio. Can\'t think of any others at this moment. Not a big list there but they looked very good.
Its as a whole though. Prehaps Shemue should be put up against GT3. However as a whole it seems that the DC games have been more sharp and better looking than PS2. Also remember that although DC has lived longer its also dated technology compared to PS2. Another point worth mentioning is that the DC didn\'t live that long. Give the PS2 a bit longer and in terms of years it will have suppased the DC. Then that will elimate any excuse of it takes time to get used to programming consoles - although I understand that consoles have different learning curves but when the average life of a console is 5 years it should take any longer than 2 years to be seeing really good games.
Although it seems that this thread is turning into a PS2 vs DC graphics. I was only using DC as an example for my statement that the PS2 graphics aren\'t great. Even if they were better they should be significantly better considering - newer console, newer technology, DC has been dead since about march.
I think you are looking for the holiest of the holy, the perfect game, you know the one that we all hope is just around the corner, or bound to show up with the release of a new console. ;) Something that will make your jaws drop to the floor, and make you spend sleepless hours pondering the time that you will be able to play this game.
Well for the PS2 i had this moment some months back, the first video i watched of MGS2, you know which vid I’m talking about the one that was 100+MB big. ;)
-
The Dreamcast was an easy platform to develop for. The PS2 is not. Why do you seem so surprised at the fact that DC games aren\'t visually overshadowed by PS2 games?
The graphics are fine, and they will get better.
-
GAMES
Read my Falcon 4 post. Thats my reply. :)
TOXICAL
Well I wouldn\'t go as far as that. You prehaps think im being a bit harsh on the PS2. Well the same can be reversed. I think the PS2 does need to improve on its graphics. I wouldn\'t say so if we hadn\'t met that stage yet. The Dreamcast has already set the notch for the next level of graphics - i.e. to suppase what the dreamcast has done. I just don\'t feel the PS2 has done it yet - yes it has in a handful of games - but on the whole it hasn\'t.
182Ways
An easy excuse is that. Yeah OK the Dreamcast was easier to program for. The PS2 is also a better piece of hardware than the Dreamcast. Im supprised that we haven\'t overshadowed the dreamcast because the PS2 has been out over a year in Japan and some of the games being released look dreadful. Then I switch on my dreamcast and the overall quality of the games - in terms of graphics - on that platform seems much higher. The PS2 should have overshadowed the dreamcast by now. The fact that it hasn\'t worries me. It makes me feel that the overall final quality of games in about 2 years time might only be equal to top quality dreamcast games. Not that I would be upset but I would expect more from a newer console - in a sense a generation ahead.
-
OK Its been a good debate so far.
Lets try and leave the PS2 vs DC graphics for now though. Its a whole different topic really.
So far it seems you are all happy with the PS2\'s graphics and you think that it will improve some more. Fair enough. :)
Anyone else want to reply with some different responses?
Anyway im off for sleep now. Chances are when I next check the forums there will be too many posts to reply to each one - if anyone else shows interest in the debate - but ill try and at least reply to some of them.
-
RichGUK, pretend you just entered 4th grade. During your first day of school, you get a 10-question Basic Math test. Easy. Three days later you get a 50-question test on calculus. You fail. What\'s your excuse?
-
My only gripe with the PS2 as of late would be its textures. The aliasing issues have gotten better, they aren\'t completely gone, but compared to first-gen games, they are doing a good job. The textures is the only aspect of the PS2 that is bothering me @ the moment. Many games have decent textures, and a few upcoming ones look to have good textures, but that\'s the thing.
Why should the textures be decent, or good? I think they should be great. I mean, 2 years later, and perhaps we\'ll get DC-caliber textures? I hope the texture-streaming ability wasn\'t complete BS, and the PS2 still has the potential of pumping out great textures with minimal sacrifices to other areas.
One aspect of the PS2 that has kept me happy - framerate.
Many of you have b!tched that the PS2 has plenty of games that are choppy, or don\'t run @ 60. It\'s true, but look @ the developer. 95% of all the big games, made by the best developers, are running @ a beautiful 60fps. Something which I think should be a standard in this age of gaming.
/ dm /
-
To be honest and un-fanboyistic (word?) as I can be I\'ll try and say this.
MGS2 will be the only revolutionary game graphics-wise coming to the PS2 for a while. I know what you are saying RichGUK, and for waiting 14 hours overnight for a PS2 on launch, I expected to see the quality of games such as
this (http://xboxmovies.ign.com/media/previews/video/doa3/doastage3.mov) (7mb)
and this (http://www.kcestudios.com/ad2/images/ad2_2.mpg) (33mb)
If you are looking for a jaw-dropping game, look at the Gamecube and Xbox.
This is what I think. I may be an ediot but the only game that had me going "Wow!" was SSX, and that does have some slowdown.
-
Would Streaming the Textures make them high res and look better, cuz i\'m confused!!!!!
Answer me ok?
-
streaming of textures would just mean they are constantly moving textures off the DVD ROM into memory and over to the Graphics Synthesizers VRam when needed
In theory this would allow for much greater texture usage and quality because the PS2\'s Vram is only 4mb and would get filled up easily. Streaming would allow for a constant swapping of textures and woulf then allow the PS2 to use quite a bit more textures
Unfotunately it is either way tougher then originally thought or just not possible to the degree we are all hoping.
DO expect PS2 games to get better and better with every generation as these techniques and the over all understnading of the machine comes to light
Will the PS2 ever reach texture quality of the NGC and Xbox I serioulsy doubt.
-
Ya know, I got Shenmue too.. and while it does look spectacular.. I wouldn\'t go so far as to say it looks better than anything on the PS2 and here\'s why...
First off, texture lossage. I notice alot of times that parts of a characters face or body will disspear when there is a lot of action going on. A prime example is at the end of the preview movie as the camera pans up the cliff to Sha Hua\'s face. She looks like a victim of a shotgun blast to the face until the camera gets real close. Also, the polygon models are fairly low. This is masked by the excellent texturing 90% of the time.. but durring closeups it really shows.
Secondly, Pop up. I\'m not just talking about buildings or scenery.. obsticals will pop up in your path without a moment\'s notice. While dead stopping for no reason as the console loads up the textures for the character is an annoyance, it\'d tolerable up until you get a part-time job. I\'ve always made quota, but when yer rushing around to get those last 2 boxes moved before 5pm it gets frustrating to dead stop as you run into noumerous "invisible" forklifts.
Third, Framerate. I\'ve seen this game littereally drop to 5fps before. Usually it hangs in there at a stead 30fps with occasional dips to around 25 - 20 durring processor intense moments. WHile not bad by anymeans, for the graphics whores out there that\'s a definate negetive.
I\'d also like to point out for those people who never played the game before, that all the Sega fanatics who used those ultra detailed "real-time" faces as proof of Shenmues superiority are misleading you. The actual faces in the game don\'t look anywhere near as good as that famous "Chai with the nasty earwax problem" pic. Those were taken from the Shenmue Passport disk. They are polygon busts of characters who explain game features. Since they\'re only visible from the chest up, much much more processessing power can be used to make them look great. The interactivity with them tho, is limited to paning the camera, zoom, and changing the light source.
Now I don\'t mean to dog Shenmue in any way. It\'s a great game, and a graphical beast. It just dosen\'t "blow away anything on the PS2" like you claim. Well, at least not without getting blown away itself in other areas by current PS2 games. If anything, what Shenmue represents is the struggle to get top notch quality graphics outta underpowered hardware. If every game on the PS2 were crafted with as much skill, determination, and inventiveness as Shenmue for the DC was.. we wouldn\'t be having this conversation.
BTW: There\'s jaggies everywhere. Don\'t let anyone fool you, almost every DC game I have is chocked full of Jaggies. It\'s expecially apperant now that I have a VGA adaptor. Any argument about DC vs PS2 that mentions jaggies is a worthless topic. With Xbox I\'d understand since it has FSAA built in.. but not the DC.
-
RichGUK, ok. If we are only talking about graphics, then someone needs to mention The Bouncer. The graphics were very detailed and very smooth (almost a little too smooth?) I haven\'t played it for like 6 months, but back then, the graphics were very impressive.
Ddaryl, based on nothing but instinct alone, I think the PS2 will have equally good textures before its life is over. Of course this is just my oppinion, but I think the PS2 will turn out to be a lot more powerful than anyone had anticipated. Just wait and see. ;)
-
I can\'t help but feeling a bit disappointed graphics wise as well. PS2 is good, but it isn\'t the be all, end all console of all time. When the hype was building up \'everyone\' expected something like that IMO - but they didn\'t quite get it. What they got is a nice console with decent DVD playback. But it\'s far from perfect.
Looking back and avoiding the hype there are only a handful of the released games I really want on PS2. In the (near) future there are bound to be more good games that I want and that will impress me, but for now PlayStation 2 is bordering on disappointment - at least if you got one at launch expecting a super DC/PSX killer.
So all in all I pretty much agree with RichUK.
-
Possibile explanations:
1-PS2\'s graphics look like crap because their developers are CRAP. They should of figured the system out by now.
2-The PS2 just isn\'t that great of a system overall. What were you expecting? Something to match the quality of Xbox and NGC games?
3-The PS2 is just extremely hard to develop for. We won\'t be seeing the best until the end of the system\'s life.
4-all of the above
One of those is most likely the true answer.
I\'m not really disatisfied with PS2 graphics, just with it\'s lackluckster games. I could care less about graphics. The PS2 games released this far have not caught my interest at all.
-
This is what Reflection said about the texture thing (Stuntman):
The textures being used on the object models are all hi-res - we could zoom in and out from a distant vantage point to the back of the tuk-tuk (the trike used on the Bangkok roof level) and still be able to read the wording on the temporary advertising poster that\'s pasted to its rear. This is made possible because of PS2\'s exhaustive DMA memory, which gives coders the chance to scoot lots of data about at an incredibly fast rate. :rolleyes:
Imo the PS2 wasn\'t really graphically impressive up to GT3, but expect some nice stuff in the near future though : Silent Hill 2 anyone ?
Knotter8
-
GT3 was the first really impressive game.. Graphics wise :)
-
I\'m with Rich on this one . I was not impressed with any of the launch games. The only released game that impressed me graphics wise was Gran Turismo 3 and I still think the backgrounds in it look terrible.
However, games like MGS2, DMC and Maximo (which is gorgeous) all look to break the trend of bland looking PS2 games....
-
182Ways
Well maybe, but a year is hardly 3 days later. Same reply as before I suppose. Yeah hard to program for is a factor for some poor looking games. It shouldn\'t however be an excuse - not after a year.
Datamage
Yeah it worries me too. I see my 3dfx voodoo 1 on my PC running the likes of Kingpin and Half-Life which in terms of texture quality is about as equal as what PS2 is doing, if not better in some games - worrying thing is these PC cards and games are years old. I hope that this so called streaming technology isn\'t just a word like the "emotion" engine of the PS2, which hasn\'t really shown much in the likes of amazing things.
I can\'t help but think that the 4 meg of Vram is the achellies heel (sp?) of the PS2.
THX
Yeah it seems so true unfortunatly - the first person to agree. :)
DDaryl
Yeah that seems about right. I recorn Sony should of sacked the guy who decided to think of streaming technology and just stick with a nice chunk of VRam. Afterall streaming technology so far hasn\'t done much. The textures are fairly low quality. The first pics from Gamecube and XBox are a lot better where texture quality is concerned.
SonyFan
So true. Shenmue can be ripped to pieces. I too noticed how fork lift trucks would just appear like magic. The face details though are amazing if you ask me. When people speak and their expressions change and stuff - well its been done before but - it seems so real.
IronFist
Good call I forgot about The Bouncer. Very blurred game - apparently a feature not a thing to make it run smooth - but it looked great.
Samwise
Hay another person who agrees. :) Yeah I know what you mean. A fairly good console, average DVD player. Nothing great in terms of console gaming so far.
Jumpman
Developers are crap. Hmmm maybe. Theres a load of developers though this time so I suppose you could expect more crap ones than good ones, compared to other consoles. Also the fact that the machine is hard to develop for sort of makes the developers look crap.
As a whole though I agree.
Knotter / Fastson
Yeah GT3 does look good. Should be the norm though right ? Not the amazing GT3 as such but more the great looking GT3 along with the great looking other games.
L-I-C
Hay cool another person who agrees. :)
Oh well seems im not the only one thinking along these lines.
So theres people who think that the PS2 games look fine and they will get better and theres people like me who feel the PS2 hasn\'t done that much great stuff where graphics are concerned.
-
ya know, the graphics have gone so far that i have begun not to really care about what the graphyics are like. to me tis all bout great games. and so far there is only one for ps2 for me, GT3.
i bet GTA3 will be unbelieveably fun too but the games have been lacking in the innovation department.
-
Why didnt any 1 mensioned 2 great upcoming titles:
-Splashdown (Thats talking about phisics(water)!!! )
-GTC: Africa (it puts the gt3 in shame, beatifull landscapes)
About GT3(i own the game)
1st- about textures, programers should decrease texture quality & Blurr the textures WITCH are FAR away, if gt3 had that, the metal fences @ about >100m wouldn flicker, and the white lines also)
2nd- Some tracks have awfull sceneries, they look flat! all we c is far mountains, they could use some more polys on the landscapes, and decrease a bit in the cars, ppl wouldnt tell the difference.
3rd- Framerate DROPS??? Most of these guys exagerate extremely on this! The only game that showed frame drops till today, is Timesplitters (PAL) when, & ONLY WHEN there´s all of the bots ON SCREEN fireing @ the same time using rocket launchers or any other type of explosive weapon.
4º-Gt3 is the best racing tittle till today, but has minor flaws not important but they take some realism, THE MOST STUPID 1 IS AT NIGHT OR DUSK WHEN WE CAN C THE CARS HEaDLIGHTS ON! AND IT DOENST PROJECT ANY TYPE OF LIGHT ON TO THE FLOOR!!! (PISSES ME OFF!)
What pisses me of 2 is the fixed camera, we cant choose much :(.
Another flaw in GT3, i cant remember anyhing else lol.
xbox has 1 great tittle upcoming that will take the numba 1 place but i cant remember the name lol. but its seems that PS2 Won´t be alone, Just look at burnout!
Still GT3 is the best racing tittle avaiable till today and i love IT!!!
Cant wait till:
- Devil may Cry (Crapy textures HAHAHAAHAHAHAHA)
- Sillent Hill 2 (crapy textures? LOL)
- SPLASHDOWN ( !*_*! EYE CANDY! )
- MGS2 (doenst need any coments)
- FFX..etc.. (dont like rpgs)
- ICO ( I believe this will be the first RPG ill buy, it seems way better than FFX)
- Tony Hawks 3 ( :D )
- GTC: AFRICA (LOVELY!)
- TimeSplitters2 (The best Multiplayer game on ps2)
-SpyHunter
-BurnOut (13 MILLION POLYS!!!)
-Drop Ship
I could go on, like Ace Combat 4 (crapy textures! MY ASS!!! PHOTOREALISTIC EVEN MORE THAN GT3!)
As every1 can see there are starting to show up rally good 2nd generation games with Xelent textures, nice gameplay, great variaty of titles for all tastes!
The only game i feel bad not to come in to the PS2 (But its rumored to come) is.............PLANETSIDE! (i believe it will only come 1 year after the online strategy of sony is up and running)
OOOoohhh, I FORGOT ANOTHER IMPORTANT GAME!
(aahh i cant remember the freeking name of it, its about outlaws mafia, thiefs, car chases, and its not GTA3, its....ggrrrr....remember....REMEMBER!!! I had to c the "Review" section to look up for the games name, lolol)
>>>>> THE GETAWAY <<<<<<
The game everyone talked about when the 1st pics were released, REMEMBER ALL GUYS WERE COMENTING ABOUT THE TEXTURES, "impossible to be in real-time", "I doubt thats in real-time" "Thats Pre-rendered".......blá...blá..blá....
Well no movie was released besides 1 were we can c the caracter talking with the Bad guy, smoking a cigar, in a white suit!.
Crapy textures???
Still with doubts about ps2 capalibilities?
-
I must admit, i whole hartedly agree with you Rich. After getting over the graphics in GT3, which isn\'t really that hard to do,
i\'m feeling a little underwhelmed by the overall ignorance of Sony. There may be only about 7 games that i\'m seriously
waiting for, but these will also appear on Microsofts X-Box.
It\'s loking imho that sony will get washed up as people defer to either GC or X-Box. now i am certainly not one to want
to go to another console after such a small time with the PS2
but it\'s looking doomed right about now. textures just look rubbish imho, and don\'t seem to be getting any better.
probably one of the only games comming out that really impresses me is Devil May Cry, this does look good,
but we Brits have to put up with shoddy conversions
and most likley that this will have borders as big as Onimusha\'s. I\'m pissed at crappy conversions and have quite
simply had enough. i am seriously debating wether to sell my PS2 while i can get a good price, then wait to see what
the other systems have in store. A console simply can\'t survive with about 7 must have titles. and quite frankley,
i feel robbed
I believe that Rich hasn\'t set his standards too high, i feel the same..... TOTALLY!
I have more fun surfing the net and chatting to you guys. I have sold all my games and now only have GT3 and it\'s
getting a little tedious now. iv\'e gone through about 88% now so i\'ll see it through to the end.
but once that is done, i\'ll probably sell.
Just look at our conversion of Code Veronica. that\'s just a cheap cash in job:
The borders on the UK version are MASSIVE
The Graphics are lower resolution than that on DC
The Textures are Crap
Simply put, Capcom are bleeding us dry with **** conversions. SIMPLE
If i could be bothered to give you any more examples then i would. Rich knows what i\'m on about.
I honestly believe that a X-Box may be under my television by spring.
StAnZo
-
I hate topics about graphics...has there ever been a topic here when we debate the quality of gameplay which is all that SHOULD matter?
-
We\'re debating both. Come on, don\'t kid yourself. What would you rather play here in 2001? A game with so-so graphics and good gameplay, or an equally good game with great graphics? Graphics does matter, to a certain point. No one is interested in a great looking game without good gameplay (Bouncer) but good visuals is one of the ingredients in a good game. If I hear the "graphics doesn\'t matter" argument one more time I think I\'m gonna puke.
-
Originally posted by Samwise
We\'re debating both. Come on, don\'t kid yourself. What would you rather play here in 2001? A game with so-so graphics and good gameplay, or an equally good game with great graphics? Graphics does matter, to a certain point. No one is interested in a great looking game without good gameplay (Bouncer) but good visuals is one of the ingredients in a good game. If I hear the "graphics doesn\'t matter" argument one more time I think I\'m gonna puke.
But graphics don\'t matter. It is ALL about gameplay. I have been waiting for a developer to make another 2D Contra game, or another 2D Blaster Master game, but it just hasn\'t happened. Most developers are just following the high-polygon-count trend, which IMO, is really hurting the gaming industry. Graphics do not matter. It is all about the gameplay.
-
I\'ve been reading this forum for a while now, but this topic finally got me to post.
Yes GT3 is a fine game, but let\'s face it, racing games are easy to make (graphics wise). Slap a shiny texture on a mostly blocky object (because cars are blocky objects) and you have a convincing looking car. Organic objects (eg people) are troublesome because of their inherent complexity and this is where PS2 fails IMO.
The games haven\'t impressed me (graphically). I feel I am a victim of hype and am part of a money making scam.
It seems to me that Sony got arrogant after PSX. I hope they get tossed on their ass so they come out swinging again for round 3.
Does it really need to be argued? DC vs PS2? There should be no argument at all--the PS2 should be the clear winner in terms of graphics and framerate. But an argument can be made (although with concessions) and that in itself is a failing on the part of the PS2. We were promised the next generation, and we got a DC with less innovation and slightly better graphics. Sigh.
And I\'m insulted that some people here think it is fine that we should have to wait 2 years before we finally get good looking games. What kind of apathy is this? If you bought a porsche, but it couldn\'t drive over 100 for the first two years would you be content?
I seem more upset with sony than I actually am, but I just wanted to get some things off my mind.
An interesting line caught my attention, and I think I agree:
I may be looking at a certain black box come spring.
-
Originally posted by IronFist
But graphics don\'t matter. It is ALL about gameplay. I have been waiting for a developer to make another 2D Contra game, or another 2D Blaster Master game, but it just hasn\'t happened. Most developers are just following the high-polygon-count trend, which IMO, is really hurting the gaming industry. Graphics do not matter. It is all about the gameplay.
I partly disagree. Of course gameplay is the most important, but I sure as h3ll don\'t want to play a new game with 1980-graphics 20 years after. If people are talented enough making good games with good graphics shouldn\'t be much of a problem. I don\'t want a compromise for my 50 bucks! I want good gameplay and good graphics (along with good sound etc. of course). I\'ll say it again: Graphics does matter. Just not alone.
-
But graphics don\'t matter. It is ALL about gameplay.
I\'m gonna have to disagree. If it was all about gameplay, then we should stick to our Super Nintendo games. Consoles evolve, graphics are supposed to get better, and along that, comes enhancements and innovations to gameplay. (hopefully) .. This \'graphics\' don\'t matter is BS. Sure, gameplay is a must, but eye-candy is what new power is used for... otherwise consoles would never die.
Don\'t get the wrong idea, I don\'t want games to be like The Bouncer, but if you think graphics don\'t matter, you\'re just kidding yourselves.
/ dm /
-
Last E3 people said PS2, GC and Xbox were at the same level of graphics..
Maybe you should lower your expectations.. And stop looking at the specs..
Thats what I think..
I think there are alot of great looking PS2 titles out there (titles that spank most of the games out there! if not all of them!).. And alot more of them are coming.. (please dont make me post pics. Cuz I dont want it to turn into a pic vs pic debate!) :D
-
i\'m trying to think of a way to approach this "debate," even though it is just a difference of opinion, but for the life of me, I can\'t think of a single thing to say that hasn\'t already been primarily said. I just want to clarify a few points about the PS2:
Sad fact: If you expect all XB games or PS2 games or GCN games to have the look of DOA3, Rogue Leader 2, Metal Gear Solid 2, Final Fantasy X, Waverace: BS, or Project EGO, you need to stop using the drugs and smell the coffee. Every system will have their fair share of Superman 64 caliber titles. That should be enough to end the debate there about graphics... but I won\'t let it go THAT easy.
Sad Fact: Even though certain games will be high in polygon counts and utilize all these made up Nvidia buzz words and constantly compare themselves to Toy Story real-time graphics, a lot of people will still enjoy a good 2D games. Example: Capcom Vs SNK 2. Example, although built with polygons but still fought on a relatively 2D plane, Super Smash Bros Melee. Example: Capcom Vs SNK 3. 3D graphics allow for new things and new styles of gameplay, but 2D is still going to be great even since it has been left in the dust since last generation.
Sad Fact: In 4 years, no one will care which game looked better. Instead, the greatness of a console will be judged by the amount of GREAT games available for it. Unfortunately, I can\'t see DOA3 being wowed over 4 years from now for its astounding gameplay much like Soul calibur or Tekken or VF is today. The games that look great and play poorly will be remembered as that. They will never be considered to be among the consoles GREAT titles, but rather the consoles blunders.
Happy Fact: It all gets better from here. Graphics and new innovative gameplay ideas can only come from poor graphics and poor gameplay ideas. Once companies understand that having great graphics is only a small portion of having a great game, they will understand what it is they should focus on. Once gameplay is the main basis for designing a game -- then games will continue to improve graphically and gameplay wise.
When it is all said and done, four years from now, we will see which system truly had the better offering for gaming enthusiasts around the world.
-
Seems the debate has changed again, now its gameplay vs graphics. Well fair enough gameplay is the one main factor that should never be left till the end, lets face it, no brownie points for stating that.
However if graphics ment nothing then we would all be emulator fanatics. What would be the point in buying new consoles when technically all they can offer are better graphics.
No Samwise is correct on this. You buy a new console you want decent graphics, so much so, you feel a bit peeved when your new console which you have bought - prehaps due to the hype - is producing shoddy looking games.
Thats one of the reasons I started this debate. My opinion the PS2 has shown us nothing in terms of graphical cababilities. The fact that GT3 has been released along with the demo of MGS2 and everyone keeps quoting these games as gold is even more anonying. Fair enough 2 good looking games - over a year its taken. Is that really the power you expected from a new PS2 ? For me no! It isn\'t unfortunatly.
Even with these two games - i\'ve seen them running in real life. They have their flaws. Its even more sad that people herald these games as some amazing achievement. Yeah they look great but shorely games like this should be the norm on this console not the extremely rare?
-
Originally posted by Samwise
We\'re debating both. Come on, don\'t kid yourself. What would you rather play here in 2001? A game with so-so graphics and good gameplay, or an equally good game with great graphics? Graphics does matter, to a certain point. No one is interested in a great looking game without good gameplay (Bouncer) but good visuals is one of the ingredients in a good game. If I hear the "graphics doesn\'t matter" argument one more time I think I\'m gonna puke.
I never said "graphics don\'t matter". I\'m just saying there are NEVER any topics about gameplay itself. Graphics can only go so far until you crave for better gameplay. I was just disgustid how some people here were acting like PS2 is a total disapointment all because of the graphics. I\'d be fine if they said they were disapointed because of the crappy games, but unfortuately it\'s the other way around.
As for your question, of course I\'m going to take the better looking game. But if it was a great looking game with so-so gameplay and an ok looking game with great gameplay then you know which one I\'m taking.
/goes back to playing best game of all time, Mario 3
-
Even with these two games - i\'ve seen them running in real life. They have their flaws. Its even more sad that people herald these games as some amazing achievement. Yeah they look great but shorely games like this should be the norm on this console not the extremely rare?
I hate answering posts by quoting myself, but here goes:
Sad fact: If you expect all XB games or PS2 games or GCN games to have the look of DOA3, Rogue Leader 2, Metal Gear Solid 2, Final Fantasy X, Waverace: BS, or Project EGO, you need to stop using the drugs and smell the coffee. Every system will have their fair share of Superman 64 caliber titles. That should be enough to end the debate there about graphics... but I won\'t let it go THAT easy.
-
Ryu: I agree with you..
Look at Xbox.. Not all games are pretty. (remember that fighting game.. lol!)
Same goes for PS2 and GC.. (of course!)
-
Well, I agree PS2 graphics are dissappointing, but one game no one mentions-ZOE-has truly amazing graphics compared to anything else in my opinion (shame about the gamesplay!) Yes, that is including Gt3. It is super fast, has highly detailed Robots, backrounds, and wonderful special effects whizzing across the screen, all fatser than the eye can blink (well, almost.)
-
Originally posted by Jumpman
I never said "graphics don\'t matter". I\'m just saying there are NEVER any topics about gameplay itself. Graphics can only go so far until you crave for better gameplay. I was just disgustid how some people here were acting like PS2 is a total disapointment all because of the graphics. I\'d be fine if they said they were disapointed because of the crappy games, but unfortuately it\'s the other way around.
Well, I partly agree with you, but many games aren\'t "crappy". I mean, I love Red Faction, Fur Fighter (don\'t laugh-I like wierd games) Extermination, SSX, and I also love Escape From Monkey Island (very funny) and Twisted Metal Black and Timesplitters (great multiplayer fun) Oh..........though unoriginal, Gt3 is addictive as hell.
-
Originally posted by Samwise
I partly disagree. Of course gameplay is the most important, but I sure as h3ll don\'t want to play a new game with 1980-graphics 20 years after. If people are talented enough making good games with good graphics shouldn\'t be much of a problem. I don\'t want a compromise for my 50 bucks! I want good gameplay and good graphics (along with good sound etc. of course). I\'ll say it again: Graphics does matter. Just not alone.
Ok, I agree with that somewhat. I don\'t want to go back to pong graphics, i.e, I don\'t want to play a Tekken game that has stick figures as the characters. :)
But I don\'t like the way the gaming industry is moving. Like I said, almost every company is following the tons-o-polygons trend. Even the companies that don\'t have enough manpower or talent to make games that have a really high polygon count are emphasizing polygons over graphical style, which is apparent in the quality of graphics in their games.
I think that companies should learn to be original. They shouldn\'t all be trying to push the polygons. There are not enough companies making 2D games, making Cel Shaded games, or making games with original graphical ideas. They are all just doing the same boring thing. :(
So maybe graphics are important, but if the game I\'m playing looks pretty much the same as all other games, I will not care about the graphics at all and ONLY look at the gameplay. I don\'t care if a game has a super high polygon count if the graphical style of the game is same old same old.
-
Dreamcast has always been very impressive...but ive never felt any of them, not even Shenmue have been able to come close to being better than the best looking PS2 games. Problem is, if people are disappointed by the PS2 because the graphics are only a little better than PSX games (try playing games other than GameDay) then why the hell are you playing games at all?
thing is...out of games BEING released in the future, all consoles have great looking games, and its my opinion that of these future games, PS2 is heading the field
great looking games
~ MGS2
~ FFX
~ J&D
~ RS:2
~ DoA3
I partly disagree. Of course gameplay is the most important, but I sure as h3ll don\'t want to play a new game with 1980-graphics 20 years after. If people are talented enough making good games with good graphics shouldn\'t be much of a problem. I don\'t want a compromise for my 50 bucks! I want good gameplay and good graphics (along with good sound etc. of course). I\'ll say it again: Graphics does matter. Just not alone.
ohhhh, F**K!!! youve convinced me Sammy... *returns GameBoy Advance*
-
I think the point is moot. I think we are complaining about the graphics because the games themselves are pretty boring too (read unoriginal, sequels, etc).
The PS2 has been a lackluster experience thus far. It\'s the rehash- been-there-done-that-same-old-tricks machine. I know that\'s not entirely true, but mostly it is. Originallity is a strange alien to the PS2 and its developers. Even the lauded FF series has been tiresome. There have been moments, sure, but they have not been bright or long-lived.
Take GT and MGS away and what do we have? Some good games like the ones mentioned above, but nothing really noteworthy.
If gameplay was king, DC would be beneath everyone\'s TVs right now, not the PS2. Masses don\'t think gameplay, and don\'t read forums unfortunately. The PS2 is enjoying success largely because the PSX was a revolution and a (deserved) success.
I once thought the big N would be the saviour of us all, but they\'ve quietly been doing the same thing since the NES, have never done better in my opinion, but neither have they done worse. Nintendo games no longer cater to me I fear. They seem watered down. MO.
I hope the xbox gets it right. Everyone fears it and marks it as a strike against MS, but I think a little PC inspired gameplay might breathe new life into the sagging console market.
-
Originally posted by Watchdog
Take GT and MGS away and what do we have? Some good games like the ones mentioned above, but nothing really noteworthy.
we can all have our opinions, but as far as im concerned there are PLENTY of great games to fill me in for this entire generation
If gameplay was king, DC would be beneath everyone\'s TVs right now, not the PS2. Masses don\'t think gameplay, and don\'t read forums unfortunately. The PS2 is enjoying success largely because the PSX was a revolution and a (deserved) success.
this isnt really relevant in a thread about graphics, DC\'s, for when it was released had easily the best graphics, and better than plenty of PS2 and PC games out now...its the marketing, its the reputation, and its the franchises
I hope the xbox gets it right. Everyone fears it and marks it as a strike against MS, but I think a little PC inspired gameplay might breathe new life into the sagging console market.
we shall see...but it all comes down to opinion, and this is really a debate about the graphics moreso than gameplay
-
the graphics have already come far enought for me to say that i really could not care if a game had better graphics. i really look more on the gameplay and how fun the game is to play. i think that in this generation, graphics will be a second to great playing games
-
I would be happy to have graphics comparable to DMC and MGS2
in all upcoming PS2 games, as long as these games are not lame in the "play" category. :)
-
Originally posted by CS2x
Well, I agree PS2 graphics are dissappointing, but one game no one mentions-ZOE-has truly amazing graphics compared to anything else in my opinion (shame about the gamesplay!) Yes, that is including Gt3. It is super fast, has highly detailed Robots, backrounds, and wonderful special effects whizzing across the screen, all fatser than the eye can blink (well, almost.)
With all that said, that game still sucked because the gameplay was horrible
and p.s. I think your crazy if you think it looks better than GT3, but its your opinion
-
Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
ohhhh, F**K!!! youve convinced me Sammy... *returns GameBoy Advance*
Shame on you Bobbo. I was talking about consoles (PS2) and you know it. There\'s a big difference both in price and performance. But even GBA is an improvement over the old GB. Wouldn\'t you be disappointed if a new GBA didn\'t offer an improvement over a 10 year old machine? I know I would.
-
Originally posted by Ryu
I hate answering posts by quoting myself, but here goes:
Well im going to have to do the same. What I mean by "the norm" is the normal. The average in a sense.
I don\'t expect every game to look like FFX etc. However I would expect that at least the majority of games look decent - like a next generation console. As it happens The Bouncer, ZOE, GT3, Onimusha and a demo of MGS2 are prehaps the best looking titles on the console. I don\'t demand this all the time but definatly more of this.
I think this standard of graphics should be more towards the norm lets face it, 4 games and a demo (with only prehaps 2 of them games being any good) out of over a years worth of PS2 life is pretty disapointing. Especially when the other PS2 titles look so rubbish - I won\'t go into quoting but im thinking along the lines of Winback, Sky Odyssey etc.
Although alot of this can be put down to the massive amount of games that have been released for the PS2 - although you could argue that the more games that have been released the more graphical impressive titles we should have seen. Either way though its still only a hand full of games.
-
I think there will be more and more better looking games in the future.Even in the near future.
The developers can`t afford to deliver games that look worse than the games out so far. Nobody would buy them.
I think the goods will be delivered finally...just look at Stuntman,Baldur`s Gate,Splashdown,WipEout...
-
Yeah you make a valid point. I want graphics to suppase GT3 and after waiting a year I want them as soon as possible.
We have got GT3, MGS2, Onimusha Warlords etc so we know good graphics can happen on this console.
Hopefully all the hit titles coming up - silent hill 2, final fantasy X, baulders gate etc all have great graphics (and of course gameplay more than anything). When this happens we can all look back at this debate and laugh. I just hope it does happen.
-
I don\'t expect every game to look like FFX etc. However I would expect that at least the majority of games look decent - like a next generation console. As it happens The Bouncer, ZOE, GT3, Onimusha and a demo of MGS2 are prehaps the best looking titles on the console. I don\'t demand this all the time but definatly more of this.
If every developer produced top notch quality titles, then why would we need magazines, reviews, news, and many other things to help us CHOOSE which games to buy? In the manner you are speaking, you make it sound like you want to be able to go to the store, buy any game off the shelf and be satisfied with it and that has never been the case. Did you expect that trend to change this generation? Why should it if developers can still make money off Army Men Games?
I think this standard of graphics should be more towards the norm lets face it, 4 games and a demo (with only prehaps 2 of them games being any good) out of over a years worth of PS2 life is pretty disapointing. Especially when the other PS2 titles look so rubbish - I won\'t go into quoting but im thinking along the lines of Winback, Sky Odyssey etc.
Go back to the PSX launch and its first year of release and show me just how many games are really worth owning nowadays. If you can find more then 10 titles, I\'ll be surprised. Every console starts off slow. You need to look at your console purchase as an investment beyond it\'s first year. Don\'t be so short-sighted, RichGUK. There\'s 4 years left in the PS2\'s life roughly. If 15 games come out in its first year that are worth owning (we still have sept and oct left before its one year US anniversary), then just imagines how many more we can tack onto that in the next 3-4 years. If you have 40 PS2 games in your library that you consider must-haves or relatively good games, then I think the console has done its job. The PSX did, the N64 did, the DC did, the Saturn did, but it took the consoles entire life span to truly reach those standards. Just see the big picture, I think you are just being far too judgemental of the past 300 days of the consoles life rather then the future 1100 days.
-
want graphics to suppase GT3 and after waiting a year I want them as soon as possible.
Im sure they announce a driving game soon that will surpass GT3 visually..
That rally game.. (forgot its name.. Its inte the main forum btw) looks pretty nice..
So does Stuntman.. And hopefully Getaway will look awesome :)
-
Originally posted by Ryu
If every developer produced top notch quality titles, then why would we need magazines, reviews, news, and many other things to help us CHOOSE which games to buy? In the manner you are speaking, you make it sound like you want to be able to go to the store, buy any game off the shelf and be satisfied with it and that has never been the case. Did you expect that trend to change this generation? Why should it if developers can still make money off Army Men Games?
Once again more "like" these top notch games. So far it seems that we have some good looking games - a handful - and then a load of really bad ones in comparasion. Its bringing these bad ones up to scratch which would make me happier - rasing the overall quality.
Also we need mags, et al to help us choose cause im only on about graphical capabilities alone. Although to go into gameplay is another thing - the PS2 has far too many rehashes - but no I don\'t use magazines, websites etc to help me choose games on graphics, i use them to find out about the gameplay and that would still continue.
Go back to the PSX launch and its first year of release and show me just how many games are really worth owning nowadays. If you can find more then 10 titles, I\'ll be surprised. Every console starts off slow. You need to look at your console purchase as an investment beyond it\'s first year. Don\'t be so short-sighted, RichGUK. There\'s 4 years left in the PS2\'s life roughly. If 15 games come out in its first year that are worth owning (we still have sept and oct left before its one year US anniversary), then just imagines how many more we can tack onto that in the next 3-4 years. If you have 40 PS2 games in your library that you consider must-haves or relatively good games, then I think the console has done its job. The PSX did, the N64 did, the DC did, the Saturn did, but it took the consoles entire life span to truly reach those standards. Just see the big picture, I think you are just being far too judgemental of the past 300 days of the consoles life rather then the future 1100 days.
Yeah I agree to some extend. My brother owned a Sega Saturn and although looking back he would have sooner got the PSX he still felt he was able to purchase enough quality games to make the investment worth while.
I must stress though im not judging the PS2 on good games in terms of gameplay. I agree that its hard for a console not to have enough games to make it worth while. Even if it only had 2 games a year, over 5 years is 10 games worth purchasing. Im simply stating that the graphical capabilities of the console haven\'t been up to scratch thus far. Maybe it will get better maybe it won\'t but simply put in my opinion im a tad disapointed with what i\'ve seen so far in terms of graphical achievments.
Besides the handful of games thats been mentioned many times so far in this post alone, the rest are on a par with my old 200Mhz 3dfx 1 - if that.
In a sense we aren\'t really debating. We sort of talking about two different things aren\'t we? Im not being short sighted, I can perfectly grasp the fact that the PS2 has life left in it to improve - which is what your saying.
You haven\'t actually told us your opinion, just made excuses on why it could be like it is - yes you have said that its a new console and other consoles in history of gaming have taken time to show their true colours - but what is your opinion on what you have seen so far on the PS2 ? Good bad ? Better or worse than you expected ?
New console or not, hard to develop for or not, I expected the overall quality of games in the graphics department only to be higher thats all im saying. :)
-
The DC was great right from the start. Great games great graphics. It was always great. It still is great. There are far more good games for the DC than the PS2. This is why the PS2 is a dissappointment, both graphically and in terms of gameplay.
-
Originally posted by Watchdog
The DC was great right from the start. Great games great graphics. It was always great. It still is great. There are far more good games for the DC than the PS2. This is why the PS2 is a dissappointment, both graphically and in terms of gameplay.
Yeah you\'re right Watchdog, DC\'s Great with a big G, but also Dead as a Dodo with a big D !:laughing:
C\'mon were do you come from bashing the PS2 with 5 posts.
My view - things are more complex in the 128 bit era
- PS2 is somewhat difficult, though with big potential.
- things can only get better.
Like Ryu said, theres\' still lotsa time left for improvement in PS2\'s
lifecycle.
Knotter8
-
What does the # of posts matter? I can\'t have an opinion because I haven\'t posted here often?
hmm.
Anyway, the DC isn\'t dead because of a lack of quality software. I was making the subtle point that if gameplay was all that mattered the DC would still be around. Furthermore, Games do not sell a system, hype sells a system. Games sell a system 2 or three years after launch..
I have enjoyed a few PS2 games, but none of them have been innovative or "new". Do I regret it? Tough to answer, and I\'ll give it some more time.
-
YALL NEED TO QUIT WHINNING NO console has ever given you all top notch games. And ps2 titles have been impressive grahics wise. bOUNCER,NBA STREETS, DOA, TTT, TMB, RED FACTION, MADDEN....ect...ect.. Most of all the psx bandwaggon jumpers jumped on psx in it\'s late days when good games where coming out. They where not there in it\'s early years.
So when ps2 dropped they expected to see all AAA titles in it\'s first year:rolleyes:
-
When the PS2 first came out I was one of the suckers who got caught up in the hype. However after coming back down to earth, I have been able to appreciate what the console has achieved so far. Is it what I expected? No? Am I disappointed? Maybe. All I know is that I don\'t think I\'ve played a PS2 game that has made me say, "Damn. These graphics are crap!" As a matter of fact, its been more of the opposite for me.
IMO to say the graphics are crap is a bit strong. I think people have to ask themselves, Am I saying this game is crap because it\'s not living up to the original hyped up expectations or is it really.... crap ? IMO crap means a game that looks so bad that I can\'t even take the time to appreciate what the game offers (i.e gameplay, sroryline, etc...). People know when a game looks like crap. It\'s just something you notice right away. I think it\'s almost similar to buying new clothes. Whether it be a shirt, pair of pants, or whatever.....if you see something that looks ugly you know it and you ask yourself, "Well why did they even bother!?" I don\'t think the PS2 has a game that makes me ask this question.
I mean does NBA street, Red faction, ZOE, Onimusha, Tekken tag, Timesplitters or SSX look like crap? Sure they each have their graphical weak points but does this mean the game looks like crap? It\'s simple. If you have these high expectations of what you think the console should be dishing out, then just about every game will be judged in this mentally hyped framework.
-
Games like Rune have crap graphics..
But hardley ALL ps2 games have crappy graphics..
Oh and I mostley agree with wiseboy!
(samwise\'s son?)
-
No the graphics aren\'t crap--youar making too fine a point of everything said.
Gamers were promised a revolution. Promised by Sony. There has been no revolution. There has been excuses and delays, and uninspired games for the most part.
And the PS1 had great games in the first year. Wipeout and demolition derby were a great leap ahead, were fresh, and lots of fun to play. We also had Tomb Raider when it was actually good. I\'m sure I can dig out my old games and name some more, but I think I\'ve already proven my point. The PS1 always had good games, that\'s why it survived and eventually thrived in the market.
Don\'t revise history to prove a point I guess is all I\'m saying.
-
Yeah some more interesting points rasied.
When I created the topic title I shouldn\'t have said "Why are the PS2s graphics cr@p?" as though it was a fact - since the whole thing was a debate. However I did it as I know it would have flared a few people up to respond. If I had just put a standard topic like "Im disapointed are you?", would it have gotten the same amount of reponses - which for the majority are good ones too?
About the PS1 vs PS2. People seem to think that the PS2 is like the PS1 in terms of them sharing a first bad year - if your opinion is that the PS2 has had a bad year. Like Watchdog though I don\'t share that opinion. Did the PS1 really have a bad first year. If you ask me, no it didn\'t! Lots of innovating games, original titles and good gameplay. Also the Saturn didn\'t last too long so the PS1\'s first year must have played a big part in that.
Again Watchdog makes a valid point. When games are so unoriginal - lets face it the majority of PS2 games have been - then its easier to notice that the graphics might not be great either. Most people either think that a console has great games and great graphics or bad games and bad graphics - rarely a positive and a negative opinion. So yeah I think its fair to say that some of my quibbles with the PS2s graphical capabilities might be from me not being so pleased with the PS2s lack of innovation and great games.
So Watchdog welcome to the board. :)
-
Thanks Rich.
And let me say, I always approach console specific boards with much skepticism because usually they are rife with fanboys and flamers, but I must say this is the most open-minded and intelligent board I\'ve ever been to.
People here have OPINIONS and are allowed to write them without the worry (or should I say certainty) of being flamed. It\'s a nice refreshing change.
-
Originally posted by RichGUK
Yeah some more interesting points rasied.
About the PS1 vs PS2. People seem to think that the PS2 is like the PS1 in terms of them sharing a first bad year - if your opinion is that the PS2 has had a bad year. Like Watchdog though I don\'t share that opinion. Did the PS1 really have a bad first year. If you ask me, no it didn\'t! Lots of innovating games, original titles and good gameplay. Also the Saturn didn\'t last too long so the PS1\'s first year must have played a big part in that.
uMM PSx FIRST YEAR HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SATURN. Um when psx first launched it was 299.99. And it hardly had impressive games on it. And the sales where not massive. Psx sold all those millions of consoles in it\'s later days. Sega reputation killed the saturn ppl did not want to give sega the chance. And if I am correct didn\'t sony get in stores before sega??
Originally posted by RichGUK
Again Watchdog makes a valid point. When games are so unoriginal - lets face it the majority of PS2 games have been - then its easier to notice that the graphics might not be great either. Most people either think that a console has great games and great graphics or bad games and bad graphics - rarely a positive and a negative opinion. So yeah I think its fair to say that some of my quibbles with the PS2s graphical capabilities might be from me not being so pleased with the PS2s lack of innovation and great games.
So Watchdog welcome to the board. :)
And this hardly something you can just put on PS2. There is not one other console that gives all original and innovative games. We get are share of crappy titles from them all. So don\'t try and put ps2 to on front because it is not the only that puts out crap.
-
Saturn out or not, PSXs first year will have been influencial even if its just for the sole reason that a first year can make or break a console.
As for me putting the no innovation label all on PS2, don\'t jump the gun! You don\'t know my opinion on X-Box, Gamecube and Dreamcast where innovation is concerned. Since this is a debate about PS2s I simply stated my opinion on that console alone.
As for the death of the saturn - Sega\'s reputation probably caused them trouble later down the line - the dreamcast. During the Saturn period Sega had previously had the Genesis / Mega-drive which done well. Ignoring the add-on\'s (not full consoles) of Sega CD and 32x.
Thus Sega\'s reputation wasn\'t too bad. Lack of gaming rights - EA titles, Tomb Raider and Resident Evil past the first ones in the series and lack of advertising is what caused the Saturn to die. Not to mention that it was hard to program for and weaker in comparasion to the PS1.
-
Originally posted by RichGUK
Saturn out or not, PSXs first year will have been influencial even if its just for the sole reason that a first year can make or break a console.
As for me putting the no innovation label all on PS2, don\'t jump the gun! You don\'t know my opinion on X-Box, Gamecube and Dreamcast where innovation is concerned. Since this is a debate about PS2s I simply stated my opinion on that console alone.
As for the death of the saturn - Sega\'s reputation probably caused them trouble later down the line - the dreamcast. During the Saturn period Sega had previously had the Genesis / Mega-drive which done well. Ignoring the add-on\'s (not full consoles) of Sega CD and 32x.
Thus Sega\'s reputation wasn\'t too bad. Lack of gaming rights - EA titles, Tomb Raider and Resident Evil past the first ones in the series and lack of advertising is what caused the Saturn to die. Not to mention that it was hard to program for and weaker in comparasion to the PS1.
Man your jumping thie gun...PSX CAME IN 95 AND MADDEN DID NOT COME OUT FOR PSx TIL 97. Buy then Saturn had already headed down hill. You would be suprise how 2 failing projects impacted sega reputation. Your naming games thAT came late.
Nobody wanted to give sega a second chance. I myself fell to this bug I was still had 32max and sega cd in my head. Just like millions more and sega was not given the proper respect they diserved because there where great titles on saturn.
Remember in 96 when sega offered 3 games with there system for 199.99 when sony was offering the psx all bye itself.
-
And if I am correct didn\'t sony get in stores before sega??
No. SEGA came out with a surprise launch in May of \'95. While the PSX was launched in September.
/ dm /
-
Originally posted by datamage
No. SEGA came out with a surprise launch in May of \'95. While the PSX was launched in September.
/ dm /
Thanks I was not sure
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
Man your jumping thie gun...PSX CAME IN 95 AND MADDEN DID NOT COME OUT FOR PSx TIL 97. Buy then Saturn had already headed down hill. You would be suprise how 2 failing projects impacted sega reputation. Your naming games thAT came late.
Nobody wanted to give sega a second chance. I myself fell to this bug I was still had 32max and sega cd in my head. Just like millions more and sega was not given the proper respect they diserved because there where great titles on saturn.
Remember in 96 when sega offered 3 games with there system for 199.99 when sony was offering the psx all bye itself.
Hmm I dunno what your getting at. PSX and Saturn was launched the same year. Thus my original comment still stands. PSXs first year would have been influencial in Saturn\'s death. Not the sole reason but certainly one of them.
Sega a second chance well thats all down to opinion. Unlike when the DC was launched, I remember the Saturn launch being quiet good. No one had comdemed Sega as such and there was a lot of hype and coverage. I recorn the no body wanted to give Sega any more chances was really shown during Dreamcast times.
Also whats Sega\'s pricing plan got to do with anything. The Gamecube is going to sell alot cheaper than what the X-Box will come launch time. Doesn\'t mean that it is a sign of Nintendo doing anything bad. In any sense it will be a good move.
-
At launch the Saturn had possibly the biggest game around at the time: Virtual Fighter. In terms of graphics and gameplay it was a revolution. Sadly, the Saturn didn\'t have anything else. If memory serves (and I\'m almost certain of this), the Saturn sold out on its first day--the psx didn\'t.
The psx at launch (four months after SS) had Ridge Racer, Demolition Derby, Wipeout and news was already spreading that Tomb Raider was a psx exclusive. Add to that Panzer Dragoon and Daytona were delayed and you have a market that was prime to be taken over.
The SS\'s surprise launch was possibly the worst calculated risk in console history. It had little support and almost zero hype and no marketing in sight. The PSX was everywhere and eventually it took over.
Why this debate is in this thread I\'m not sure, but I thought I\'d add my two cents.
Sega had 1 innovtive title, a bunch of rushed products (Bug comes to mind), and 0 marketing. This is why it died. Sega\'s rep only really got tarnished after the SS (remember it sold out on its first day).
Relatively speaking, the only thing that sets the PS2 above the SS is that the PS2 had hype and marketing. It is frustrating to develop for, retailers are starting to comment on the amount of software that isn\'t moving (mostly in Japan), and there are only a few bright spots on the horizon (MGS, FF). There are other games that look promising, but that\'s all speculative.
This, like the SS/PSX market, is prime to be taken. If the GC or xbox can back up their impressive hardware there could be a turn around within the next 2-3 years.
I don\'t know about you guys, but I would not want to give MS a lead going into the next console war. They are far too good at playing in the lead (they\'re not too bad at coming from behind either).
-
Hay cool, im glad you agreed with me. :)
I can\'t believe how much Sega\'s marketing sucked. I don\'t know what it was like in the USA but in the UK there was just no advertising of the console. Yeah OK you seen it in the magazines but no where else.
The PS2 is a bit like the Saturn but the PS2 has come from a successful background - the ps1 - which assued it some sales - mine being one. Hopefully this will see it through the hard times.
-
Originally posted by RichGUK
Hmm I dunno what your getting at. PSX and Saturn was launched the same year. Thus my original comment still stands. PSXs first year would have been influencial in Saturn\'s death. Not the sole reason but certainly one of them.
Sega a second chance well thats all down to opinion. Unlike when the DC was launched, I remember the Saturn launch being quiet good. No one had comdemed Sega as such and there was a lot of hype and coverage. I recorn the no body wanted to give Sega any more chances was really shown during Dreamcast times.
Also whats Sega\'s pricing plan got to do with anything. The Gamecube is going to sell alot cheaper than what the X-Box will come launch time. Doesn\'t mean that it is a sign of Nintendo doing anything bad. In any sense it will be a good move.
EXCUSE ME IF I SEEM TO BE PISSED OF IN THIS THREAD I JUST GOT A FREAKIN ATTITUDE AS OF LATELY. When sega disorted to the 3 games and console for 199.99 which signaled that it was dying out. That is what was meant bye that. And that was 1996.
And even though sega had great games nobody bought it because why??? Nobody wanted to give sega a chance.
And psx did not start selling crazy til the price went down. And we know all those milllions and millions of psx consoles where sold at 59.99 and 99.99.
-
Yikes! Let a Sega fan step in and make things factual, instead of throwing around supposeds.
Sega Saturn lanched earlier in Japan and USA. In Japan it was killing PSX first year. It sold 5 million consoles first year alone in Japan. When Sega surprised retailers by shipping right after E3 of 1995, People got confused.
The price $399 when it came out. There were only a handful of games released on launch: Panzer Dragoon, Daytona, Virtua Fighter, and I believe NHL All Star Hockey (which was on MallRats, btw :)). The Saturn received negative press from the beginning from the biggest game magazines and retailers. Sega shot themselves in the foot and let every bastard in the country walk all over them. PS2 is the son of Saturn in terms of multiple processing, something Sega has been doing for years.
It took 2 years for Saturn to even sell 1 million systems, 2 years. It was just not destined to be a success from the start. The launch titles were stellar, IMO, but not enough, and games came as a trickle at the beginning, while games were flowing when PSX came out. Twisted Metal, ESPN X Games, Destruction Derby, Wip3out, Jumping Flash, etc.
PSX won because it was cheaper, it had more games, it had financial backing from Sony, better graphics (in the 3D field, anyway).
NOTE - The Saturn is just as powerful, and even more so in some respects, than PSX. It just couldn\'t do hardware transparencies and light sourcing. Like PS2 with FSAA.
Saturn underpowered? Ha. More like unappreciated.
Eric Jacob
-
Panzer and daytona were delayed. Not launch titles.
-
I am pretty sure you are mistaken. Go look at any Saturn FAQ on the net and it will tell you.
Eric Jacob
-
I\'m not certain, so I\'ll defer to you.
-
sounds good, after all, I am easily the biggest Sega fan on here, I should know :)
So when people say that Saturn had the worst launch eve, I pull out my copy of Panzer Dragoon and flaunt it.
I cannot wait for PD4 on X-Box. I am gonna go out on a limb and say it may be one of the most impressive looking games of it\'s time.
Eric Jacob
-
Panzer Dragoon was out @ launch, Daytona was not. :)
/ dm /
-
heh, half right isn\'t bad.
-
:)
ehh, Daytona on Saturn sucked anyway, at least CCE was a step up, but still could not match to the arcade goodness.
What game was I think ing of, because something has to replace Daytona.
Eric Jacob
-
Why are PS2 Graphics Cr@p?
Sorry but IMO i think they are superb and not only that, Finally i feal that in some Cases the Graphics do the Gameplay justice.
GT3
DMC
MGS2
FF10 (not played it yet but will sell body parts to)
ICO (like wise)
etc........etc................etc...............
ok so what if you get some jaggies, who cares.........
Well i don\'t i am just there to play the games i loves and a system that i have every "Faith*" to deliver them, (part of the reason why i bought a PS2 in the first place)
and even the games that aren\'t the best looking on the plannet (summoner For Example Still count because itsa gameplay over Graphics like it is always Should be).
REMEMBER ( for any Console !) EYE CANDY is Short TERM
GAMEPLAY IS LONG TERM
* Faith as in Faith in a Product and not some kind of Religous Faith in a Console :laughing: , i don\'t want excomunnicated from my religion after all :laughing: ...............................
-
This has all been said and didnt\' need to be restated.
-
The garphics will get better it was the same with the original PlayStation the graphics were crap but they got a lot better
-
With Gamecube being so easy to develop for, do you think they will improve MUCH over time? I doubt that the GC and Ps2 are far apart at least in terms of grahpics in 5 years. XBOX however, I dunno. That black box seems to have lotsa power. Don\'t give me any of the vaporware crap. Xbox is powerful, but Just how powerful I don\'t know. Gamecube looks just as good now, and Ps2 is a lil lacking. (*keyword lil*) But in 5 years, I doubt that Ps2 or GC have what it takes to keep up with XBOX in raw polygon pushing power.
-
Wow - after spending the last one hour to this entire thread (yes, reading every single post), I just want to add my two cents. :)
RichGUK;
there are times where I would call you an absolute moron (no offence), but at times like these with the launch of newer console just a few days back - I can\'t help but to feel the same. There is one difference within my doubts though: I know it will improve. If Polyphony can fullfil wonders like with GT3 A-Spec, than so can the average developer out there. But more to this later...
Getting to the PS2, I think that you exagerate (sp?) just a bit where graphics and framerate stand. I am also from Europe and have to deal with those sloppy PAL conversions - but framerate has never been noticably bad in SSX or other launch games. Note that I started off with 3 games at launch, owning just \'round 14 games until now. SSX is still one of the most impressive games (graphics wise) for PS2 at the moment (take away GT3). Framerate might drop at several corners, but I must say that I honestly don\'t see them or don\'t pay any attention to it. The textures are pretty sharp and very detailed, especially the city track and the tokyo complex. I don\'t see how Dreamcast (only since you mention Shenmue and high standard for graphics) is much better. Tekken TAG looked good too, Ridge Racer besides that low resolution and jagged look is far from being crap. And those were launch titles, that I would say at least touches the better share of Dreamcast titles. Then the next games appeared and ZOE being one of them featured amazing graphics (especially with particles and effects) - which I would also say is on par if not better than the standard of Dreamcast titles to date. The list continues: Rayman looks good (well, I was impressed and it\'s fun too) and so did Quake (although framerate drops are pretty bad). With the launch of GT3, the graphics are just getting better and better. And the graphics engine of GT3 didn\'t take that long if I stand correct. Polyphony was working until mid to late 2000 on GT2000 and than rebuild the graphics engine from scratch (accoarding to an interview with Yamauchi). I think GT3 is by far the best looking game on any console out to date. Even better than PC racers in many departments: no framedrop, very good car models, spectacular real-time reflections on cars and buildings, high quality and sharp textures - and on top of this, through great gameplay, simply the best racing game on any platform hands down. Okay, as have already said, it\'s just one game. Well, not exactly, SSX was very nice at the time too and GT3 is just underlining the present. Final Fantasy X launched in Japan a while ago - and is said my numourus (sp?) big magazines in Japan to be the graphic-wise the best on the PS2. Seing in-game scenes, this is not hard to believe.
Games that are launching within the first year here in Europe are Smugglers Run 2 (gorgous graphics), Devil May Cry (very nice graphics, nice textures), Silent Hill 2 and if MGS2 makes it, definately that one aswell. If you add those to the list, those are already 7 games within last month and games launching within this year. Mark that it\'s still the first year for americans and europeans with our PS2s. What did Dreamcast have to offer during this time? Apart from the much easier development on this console, it also had it\'s share of disappointments (although everything was considered a blast compared to the competitor PSX). I am sure you\'ll agree with Bluestinger (or what it was called), House of Dead, Sega Rally etc. I think the Dreamcast, despite it\'s easy development, has only shown true impressive graphics within this year and with the launch of F355 and Shenmue.
Inovation. Okay, Dreamcast is clearly great in this department, but PS2 isn\'t doing that bad either. The games with the top notch graphics might be the rehashes, but PS2 is already doing a lot of positiv things PSX was clearly missing: FPS and fun games. Lotus Challenge and Stuntman are also games that feature inovative gameplay.
I think the PS2 might have a hard time because of the many ports and large third party support. A lot of ports (Quake III, UT, DoA2:HC and others) are being rushed to the PS2. Also, there are a lot of developers that aren\'t investing a lot of time to learn the PS2 and are instead over rushing their games. The PS2 is without doubt hard to develop for, but after seing a game (that Africa Rally game) that could possibly surpass GT3 (and that from a third party) is very good news. Like I said, if Polyphony, Konami, Square, Capcom, Namco can do it, so can the others. It\'s just a question of when it will reach us. But it will come, no doubt about that.
Now that GameCube launched just a few days ago - and following the shocking announcement of the Resident Evil series going (at least for 6 titles) exclusive to Nintendo - I wonder just how much better those consoles will get (graphics wise). Anyone see the Resident Evil screens for Cube??? Look pretty damn impressive - although after finding out that the backgrounds are most likely prerendered, it doesn\'t seem that impressing anymore. I think GC and X-Box will have their disappointments aswell - and hey, not to mention that those killer apps are still far away.
So my tip, give PS2 a chance and enjoy the good games we have now. The graphics started with SSX and have gotten much better with GT3. With Final Fantasy X, Baulders Gate, MGS2, The Getaway, Stuntman, Ace Combat 4, Jax and Daxter, Onimusha 2, Silent Hill 2, Devil May Cry, Africa Rally ..., World Rally Championship and Wipeout coming soon - thing will get more impressive by the game. PS2 gamers have a bright future ahead.
Greetz
seven
PS. Sorry for the chaotic post, but I\'m tired and had quite a stressful day today...
-
I wouldn\'t say that a PSX game looks like a PS2 game. Maybe a PSX game emulated on a PC (Bleem!). Call me crazy, but Bleem! with a GeForce looks a hell of a lot like my PS2. I have yet to try the console with an S-Video cable. The PS2 does have some nice reflections, though. Look at the water effects in Extermination.
-
Originally posted by igwana
The PS2 does have some nice reflections, though. Look at the water effects in Extermination.
If you think those water effects are nice then go play the demo of ICO, they look amazing, way better than Extermination