Why are PS2 Graphics Cr@p? - A Serious Debate

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.

[Bobs_Hardware]

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.

[Bobs_Hardware]

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.