Are PS2 developers lazy?

This is just something thats bugged me for some time now. Considering that the PS2 has quite powerful graphics capabilities, don\'t you think that we should be seeing alot more in the way of new inovations in games in terms of graphics then we are now?

Ridge Racer V is a prime example. It was the first console based game ever to feature fully 3D, polygon trees and objects. No cardboard cut outs like every other developer was using (for trees, signs, birds and animals etc). With the new power of the PS2, I thought that this type of thing (fully 3D worlds) would become the norm.

This however has not been the case. Apart from GT3 (which contained both 3D and 2D objects) can you think of a game that used fully 3D environments? No. At some point or another, most if not all new games out for PS2 have used 2D bitmaps as a way yo get around technical issues. This brings me to my point. Are developers being lazy when it comes to this sort of thing? Or, is the PS2 not as powerful as first thought? If Namco can create fully 3D environments in the year 2000 for a launch title, don\'t you think we should be seeing a vast inprovement in 2002? I might be completly wrong, but its something that I have never understood.

Well PS2 has only been out for a year and a couple of months now.. I\'ve been noticing graphics improving over time.. Give it time. I\'d say with that new Vector C thing out for developers it will only get better.

And so far.. PS2\'s graphics are keeping up with Xbox.. Well.. PS2 is slippin.. but I mean look at the sequel\'s to DMC, Timesplitters, and Red Faction to name a few. Those are all looking better than the original and I suspect it\'ll only get better.

Just waiting is the thing that sucks...

[Bobs_Hardware]

Go play Jak & Daxter and get back to me..

There are plenty of games like you are describing, and even more in the future

I really dont know what you are talking about ##RaCeR##.. especially when you consider that PS2 developers are the same developers making games for other consoles

I cant recall seeing any 2D bitmaps in most games on PS2.. perhaps your love for racing games has led you to ignore all the other types of games.. Final Fantasy X and MGS2:SoL are two more examples

Of coursethe best looking games on PS2 are also the best games, and have taken the longest to make.  Perhaps its the perfectionists among the developers that really try and make the PS2 work for them, while other commpanies dont like delaying their games

The Bouncer, Devil May Cry, hell, even other launch titles like SSX, TimeSplitters, and Summoner

wah

Argumentative.  Moved to console debate.

[BizioEE]

Originally posted by ajoh432
Well PS2 has only been out for a year and a couple of months now.. I\'ve been noticing graphics improving over time.. Give it time. I\'d say with that new Vector C thing out for developers it will only get better.

And so far.. PS2\'s graphics are keeping up with Xbox.. Well.. PS2 is slippin.. but I mean look at the sequel\'s to DMC, Timesplitters, and Red Faction to name a few. Those are all looking better than the original and I suspect it\'ll only get better.

Just waiting is the thing that sucks...

From what I know...PS2\'s been out for 27 months(almost 2 years and half) and we have seen no games wich use the XBox power to deliver a honest comparison...

...but back to the topic...I don\'t think dev are lazy...they have simply time limit,a fixed budget or no enough knowledge of that particular hardware...

I think you may have mis-interpreted what I was trying to basically say. I meant that can the PS2 really perform the level of graphics that it was hyped up to, or are the developers just not willing to put into the time of modeling each individual object in 3D.

Bob, yes, I mainly only play racing games. Have you ever played WRC? The tree\'s are nothing but 2D bitmaps. If most objects are only 2D bitmaps, then is that really use alot of the PS2\'s polygon power? And most are the same bitmap, just put over a vast section of the environment. So does this mean it really only has to render it once?

Also, the reason I said PS2 developers is because its the PS2 that I have noticed this the most on. I mean, everything in DOA3 on XBOX is done in real 3D. I also wanted to keep it simple, as the PS2 is the console that most people own.

Yes, I have played Jak and Dexter. It was impressive, but nothing that really said wow. Maybe its just me.

Not really..

Ive seen this in many GC and Xbox games aswell.. Have a look at SEGA GT2k2, bitmap people, bitmap trees ect..

Have you seen Outcast 2? That game uses REAL 3D trees, no fake 2D.. Its using around 250 000 polygons per frame @ 60fps with AA and de-flicker filtering (250000x60=15million polys/s)

Have you played Jak and Daxter? That game has no 2D bitmaps from what Ive seen..

[Bobs_Hardware]

Originally posted by ##RaCeR##
I think you may have mis-interpreted what I was trying to basically say. I meant that can the PS2 really perform the level of graphics that it was hyped up to, or are the developers just not willing to put into the time of modeling each individual object in 3D.

No, it cant perform at the level fans hyped it up to be, but it can do amazing things graphically..

Bob, yes, I mainly only play racing games. Have you ever played WRC? The tree\'s are nothing but 2D bitmaps. If most objects are only 2D bitmaps, then is that really use alot of the PS2\'s polygon power? And most are the same bitmap, just put over a vast section of the environment. So does this mean it really only has to render it once?

No, it has to render it multiple times, but it doesnt use up as much RAM as it would if there were multiple textures.

Also, the reason I said PS2 developers is because its the PS2 that I have noticed this the most on. I mean, everything in DOA3 on XBOX is done in real 3D. I also wanted to keep it simple, as the PS2 is the console that most people own.

DoA3 is possibly the best looking game ever.  Other games on XBox have no 2D bitmaps, and a lot of games on PS2 have no 2D bitmaps.

Yes, I have played Jak and Dexter. It was impressive, but nothing that really said wow. Maybe its just me.

Yes it was just you  IMO J&D is one of the best looking games on any console to date.  You have cable modem, go download some Ratchet & CLank videos and see some REAL PS2 graphics.. ooh bebbe  :eyemouth:

I don\'t think devs are lazy, but they know the industry and know people will buy a game based on hype alone and so they don\'t need to spend the time on the graphics engine/gameplay.  Lazy isn\'t the right word, but when they do a half assed job, everything looks better on xbox because it\'s an easier platform to use.


Wow, you must have played the game then, Fatson.  I mean, to know all that about the game is truly remarkable.  Since you are such a open minded and non-biased member of PSx2central, I won\'t believe you have fallen for the hype of an unreleased game and have taken that as fact to use in an argument.  No, you would never do that.

:rolleyes:

Since you know all this, then I don\'t need to tell you that development of the game has been suspended on the PS2 version, while the game is still on track for the PC version.  You must be able to offer me a reason why development has been stopped on the most lucrative version of the game; why it has fallen off all release lists and why the devs aren\'t talking about it anymore.

I mean, I refuse to believe that you simply hugged your PS2 and made this wish, that you didn\'t take these facts from the hype machine and use them in your argument.  No, I will not believe that.

Wow, you must have played the game then, Fatson.  I mean, to know all that about the game is truly remarkable.

Not really.. I’ve followed the game since it was first annonced.. All my facts are taken from interviews with the developer or from their homepage (http://www.appeal.be)
I’ve also had the chance to talk to the guy leading the development of OC2 (via Email).. Really nice guy.
 

Since you know all this, then I don\'t need to tell you that development of the game has been suspended on the PS2 version, while the game is still on track for the PC version.  You must be able to offer me a reason why development has been stopped on the most lucrative version of the game; why it has fallen off all release lists and why the devs aren\'t talking about it anymore.

Heheh.. You don’t know your stuff do you?
The development of Outcast 2 has been halted on ALL platforms (PC and PS2)..
Why? Appeal got the chance to develop a licensed exclusive game for PS2 (under Infogrames publisher).
They will be using the Outcast 2 engine on that new game.
After the new game is complete, they will finish what they started, Outcast 2 will be completed on PS2 and PC. Of course this will affect the current release date (November 2002)

Was that all?
Ops.. Dinner, Ill be right back..

Uh-huh, a game that wonderful with a successful first installment, was just pushed aside because they could do something else.  Everything was going smoothly and they decided, let\'s start on something else... :rolleyes:

And the devs are always the first to tell the public that their games will suck, that there is tremendous clipping and the engine slows down to almost a halt whenever there is sound and motion at the same time.  Indeed, the devs themselves are always the best source of information.

"DOA3 is the best fighting game of all time!"--who said that?

"The PS2 will be able to render entire worlds, real people with real emotions!"--who said that?

"The xbox will deliver gamers graphics that will revolutionize the gaming world.  You will not see jaggies and slowdown and poor textures.  Everything will be high detail at high speed!" --who said that?

What did the devs/previews say about State of Emergency?  The Bouncer?  Morrowind?

Do I really need to go on?  Surely you have more than the words of the designers and some screen shots/movies.  Surely you don\'t put your entire argument on the shoulders of the things the devs themselves provide?  I have to believe that there is something else, because it\'s you fatson, and you never have a biased viewpoint concerning the PS2.

I see fastson mentioned something about a "licensed game",  that they had the opportunity to jump at, if they didn\'t, the license would\'ve gone to someone else. I think they just saw a way to make more money (= motivating factor behind just about everything), and went for it.

If fastson speaks (err, types) the truth, I see nothing worth a rolleyes smiley there.

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Watchdog
Uh-huh, a game that wonderful with a successful first installment, was just pushed aside because they could do something else.  Everything was going smoothly and they decided, let\'s start on something else... :rolleyes:

Yes they did.. I know one reason was that Outcast 2 is still their little baby..
With the new game they will get money, and the opportunity to develop/upgrade their engine, the one that will be used in Outcast 2.

And the devs are always the first to tell the public that their games will suck, that there is tremendous clipping and the engine slows down to almost a halt whenever there is sound and motion at the same time.  Indeed, the devs themselves are always the best source of information.

Please! What’s your point? That Outcast will suck?
It has been put on hold because they got the chance to develop a EXCLUSIVE LICENSED GAME FOR PS2, and the chance to DEVELOP their engine.
What’s wrong with that?

Do I really need to go on?  Surely you have more than the words of the designers and some screen shots/movies.  Surely you don\'t put your entire argument on the shoulders of the things the devs themselves provide?  I have to believe that there is something else, because it\'s you fatson, and you never have a biased viewpoint concerning the PS2. [/B]

The game was/is still early in development, so there isn’t really much to go by.
But you know what? I trust the developers, and I could give two ****s if you do it or not.

What btw is it that you don’t believe? The polygon figure? PS2 is more than capible of displaying 250 000 polygons per frame at 60fps (15mp/s), its capable of doing AA, its capable of doing de-flicker filtering.. A lot of games are already doing this... Why do you think they are lying?

I haven’t said anything about the gameplay yet (like in your DoA3 quote)

I don’t know what you are going with this Wat****. (ops its Watchdog?)

Originally posted by fastson

Have you played Jak and Daxter? That game has no 2D bitmaps from what Ive seen..

Eh? All flowers (2 crossed bitmaps or straight out flats), weeds (crossed or flat), butterflies (a mirrored bitmap with a moving joint in the middle), birds (gawd they look horrible, check out the bird-lady\'s hut, same as the butterfly, but with a vertical bitmap in the center), etc. Anyways, it works and looks good, as long as you\'re not like me. Devs have always tricked our senses (but not mine! Mwahhahahah!) with 2D objects in 3D games, and don\'t think they\'re gonna quit anytime soon.

I love to nitpick

If you want to know where I got the figures from..

150000 to 300000 polygons per frame are estimated.

- outcastii.net Technical Section (confirmed to me by Frank via e-mail)

These screenshots are unretouched (besides JPEG compression) captures taken directly from the S-Video output of a Playstation 2 using Pinnacle hardware. These are the true reflection of what the player will see on his TV set, and features full screen antialiasing flicker-free rendering in action. It is important to mention the full world is rendered at a steady 50 fps (PAL) or 60 fps (NTSC).

- appeal.be Archives, Features, 27 September 2001