Discussion: PS2 Hardware Showing its Age

Perfect Stu · 01-24-2003, 04:33 PM

Everyone knows that the PS2 is about 20 months older than its two competitors (XBox, Gamecube). Those who work in the field of electronics have shown that technology doubles every year. For example: A form of technology costs $200. A year later, the same technology would sell for $100, and new technology which would be approximately twice as fast or advanced would sell for $200. It's called something like Moore's Law. If anyone knows for sure, be sure to share.

Having said that, one would conclude that the PS2 would obviously be far inferior technologically than the Xbox and Gamecube. It is inferior, there's no question about it. Far inferior? Arguable.

Now the real topic of discussion begins. Has the PS2 hardware shown its age yet, or is it still competitive with the other 2 systems? If so, explain why and describe whether or not it affects games, consumers and sales. If not, when do you think PS2 will show its age (if ever) and when WILL it start affecting games, consumers and sales.

I'll start out with something vague. Since the launch of XBox and Gamecube, PS2 hasn't been able to keep up with the two (mainly XBox) graphics-wise. For a while I began to think that the PS2 would never start pumping out graphics that could compete either of its two competitors...until Konami showed us Silent Hill 3 and Zone of the Enders 2 (screenshots to be added later). SH3 boasts incredibly detailed character models and surprisingly sharp textures. ZOE2 offers incredible visuals, with unmatched particle effects, unique artwork and graphics style and incredibly chaotic on-screen action. With MGS3 all-but confirmed, and GT4 in the works, I know that we'll be seeing more eye-popping graphics for the oldest of the 3 next gen systems.

bobcat · 01-24-2003, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Perfect Stu
Everyone knows that the PS2 is about 20 months older than its two competitors (XBox, Gamecube). Those who work in the field of electronics have shown that technology doubles every year. For example: A form of technology costs $200. A year later, the same technology would sell for $100, and new technology which would be approximately twice as fast or advanced would sell for $200. It's called something like Moore's Law. If anyone knows for sure, be sure to share.

Having said that, one would conclude that the PS2 would obviously be far inferior technologically than the Xbox and Gamecube. It is inferior, there's no question about it. Far inferior? Arguable.

Now the real topic of discussion begins. Has the PS2 hardware shown its age yet, or is it still competitive with the other 2 systems? If so, explain why and describe whether or not it affects games, consumers and sales. If not, when do you think PS2 will show its age (if ever) and when WILL it start affecting games, consumers and sales.

I'll start out with something vague. Since the launch of XBox and Gamecube, PS2 hasn't been able to keep up with the two (mainly XBox) graphics-wise. For a while I began to think that the PS2 would never start pumping out graphics that could compete either of its two competitors...until Konami showed us Silent Hill 3 and Zone of the Enders 2 (screenshots to be added later). SH3 boasts incredibly detailed character models and surprisingly sharp textures. ZOE2 offers incredible visuals, with unmatched particle effects, unique artwork and graphics style and incredibly chaotic on-screen action. With MGS3 all-but confirmed, and GT4 in the works, I know that we'll be seeing more eye-popping graphics for the oldest of the 3 next gen systems.

I think the Dreamcast was pretty good for what it was as well, especially compared to the Ps2.

Unfortunately when you have ports of games (E.G. Splinter Cell) it's "assumed" that the Ps2 will look the worst due to it's hardware. Therefore with that in mind, ported games will look inferior on the Ps2 out of all the other systems. With games designed for the ps2, I have seen some excellent visuals. E.G. FFX, Kingdom Hearts, MGS2, SH2...........

And now with SH3 coming up, it does go to show you that Ps2 isn't greatly affected or hindered by it's early release.

Dyne · 01-24-2003, 10:12 PM

Yeah, I was playing Vice City the other day with my friends, and I was like "Holy Crap, this came out a few months ago? And it's a best-seller?". Haha, then the PS2 froze.

I wouldn't count on relying on the PS2 until it's dying days in 2005 before the PS3 is out... people are already starting to warm up to the two others. I mean, after this year, there's nothing to look forward to.

Seven7 · 01-25-2003, 05:06 AM

How DARE you make fun of GTA: Vice City....goes to find bat...J/K

yeah i guess you could say the games seem to be getting abit behind in graphics.

There's only so many games coming out for PS2 that i'm interested in that seems to be a very good game graphic wise and such now, some current favorites include the Dynasty Warriors series even tho the newer games are starting to show their age.

If I was not serious about getting investing in a new computer i would get the Xbox (finally), in order to have a new system, otherwise i'm waiting for the PS3.

gekko · 01-25-2003, 10:09 AM

The reason PS2 isn't "showing its age" is due to the horrible hardware design. It took the developers a lot of work to figure out a way to get decent graphics out of it. They are still figuring out ways to improve graphics, so the games are looking better, not worse.

With that said, PS2 still doesn't compare with Xbox or Gamecube. It just doesn't have the power to compete. Only time PS2 looks good is in screenshots.

tarakan69 · 01-25-2003, 10:30 AM

That because the screens that were posted were 1024x768... while the game will run at 640x480... the resolution will be TWICE as low. So you can't judge the game by screenschots wos resolution is twice as high.

So no the PS2 came close to being maxed out long ago with games like Jak&Daxter.

It's naive to believe that there some hidden untapped power that console... cause the whole damn game industry is concentrating on the PS2 and is pouring millions into... since it has a userbase 2.5 times bigger than the competition together.

Also if you believe Silent Hill 3 will look like this... your a MORON

So a resolution which is twice as low will make blurry bad looking textures, as opposed to those screenshots so chill... enjoy the game. It's will look nearly identical to Silent Hill 2 with small enchanments...

Perfect Stu · 01-25-2003, 11:17 AM

I rarely judge graphics on screenshots

I watch videos of the games...and Silent Hill 3 looks outstanding in video form. Same goes for ZOE2. Have you seen videos of them?

If you DON'T believe the system has untapped power than you're a moron. Compare launch games to games of today. I'm guessing in 2005 we'll see the same leap from today's games.

PS2 was created a little ahead of its time. If people were familiar with the system's architecture before the console was released, it would be pumping out great graphics. Unfortunately the PS2 is unique and has a lot of power that developers can barely use, due to their unfamiliarity with the hardware.

tarakan69 · 01-25-2003, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Perfect Stu
I rarely judge graphics on screenshots

I watch videos of the games...and Silent Hill 3 looks outstanding in video form. Same goes for ZOE2. Have you seen videos of them?

If you DON'T believe the system has untapped power than you're a moron. Compare launch games to games of today. I'm guessing in 2005 we'll see the same leap from today's games.

PS2 was created a little ahead of its time. If people were familiar with the system's architecture before the console was released, it would be pumping out great graphics. Unfortunately the PS2 is unique and has a lot of power that developers can barely use, due to their unfamiliarity with the hardware.

I agree that you should base your opinions on videos and not screenshots... but. From the movie I have seen the main improve isn't poly counts, textures, or anything else; it's lightning. Adds a lot of atmosphere... not much worse than doom 3 if you ask.

Also speaking of tapping the PS2. It's a very controversal subject... but let's face facts... the who industry has been concentrating on the PS2 and it's 4 Vram really limit it. Not all the streaming abilities in the world can allow you to enable antialising(it's also software antialising which makes it simply laughable) , high res textures, and bump mapping(not to forget PS2 simply doesn't support bump-mapping).
Also let's not forget that it doesn't have vertex shaders like X-Box to allow a wide vairety of effects. (go play Morrowind with pixel shading effects on to see what I me)

So not to sound like a PS2 basher... it's my favorite console(sorry my X-Box but Splinter Cell sucks).

Also for all you PS2 owners go rent Wipeout Fusion... BEST GAME on the PS2 imo.

Joeiss · 01-25-2003, 01:08 PM

Why doesn't the PS2 just release an add on for its RAM... Kind of like what Nintendo did for N64. This would give more RAM to use... Yep... Unless what I said is not possibly.... Then nevermind.. lol.

gekko · 01-25-2003, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Perfect Stu
PS2 was created a little ahead of its time. If people were familiar with the system's architecture before the console was released, it would be pumping out great graphics. Unfortunately the PS2 is unique and has a lot of power that developers can barely use, due to their unfamiliarity with the hardware.

More like a little behind its time. The system's architecture sucks. It's similar to N64s, but even worse.

tarakan69 · 01-25-2003, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gekko
More like a little behind its time. The system's architecture sucks. It's similar to N64s, but even worse.

That is closer truth...

The problem with the PS2's launch arose not from it's unique alien architecture which had so much power but nobody could utilize it... but from the fact that the design at heart was flawed and outdated.

There were no software development libraries... So developers had to make their own. Let's look at the X-Box... everything that PC developers had come up with for Direct X 8 could be used.All the extensions, techinque. For the PS2 you had an outdated piece of hardware with ram limitations and no software libraries.

So developers don't "learn" to tap the PS2. The technique either exists or does not. The improvements we see with each passing month is because developers basicly had nothing to tap the PS2 with from the beggining. (not like there is a whole lot to tap anyways)

Quote:

Originally posted by Joeiss
Why doesn't the PS2 just release an add on for its RAM... Kind of like what Nintendo did for N64. This would give more RAM to use... Yep... Unless what I said is not possibly.... Then nevermind.. lol.

??? Nope... even if you open your PS2 their in no easy way to intall anything into. Also you can't expect the average dumb PS2 owner to actually buy an upgrade to play newer games.

Perfect Stu · 01-25-2003, 03:48 PM

Now we're comparing the PS2 to the XBox? Damn...I guess people completely missed the point of my topic

Gekko, make your own thread stating 'The system's architecture sucks. It's similar to N64s, but even worse'...I'll be glad to lock it

Joeiss · 01-25-2003, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tarakan69

??? Nope... even if you open your PS2 their in no easy way to intall anything into. Also you can't expect the average dumb PS2 owner to actually buy an upgrade to play newer games.

Oh ok. Just an idea. I am not good on these specs things... lol.

tarakan69 · 01-25-2003, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Perfect Stu
Now we're comparing the PS2 to the XBox? Damn...I guess people completely missed the point of my topic

Gekko, make your own thread stating 'The system's architecture sucks. It's similar to N64s, but even worse'...I'll be glad to lock it

Stu it's impossible to show how the PS2 holds its own, without making a reference to other console. We always take in note the age of the PS2. It's not a debate as to whcih console is better or more power... I just think it's necessarry for reference and comparision.

Bad Religion · 01-26-2003, 06:50 PM

maybe it's just me, but I've never really been impressed with the graphics of the ps2...Ico still comes to my mind as the best graphical game, and that was basically a launch game wasn't it? I guess MGS2 was incredible at the time I saw the demo, but it got surpassed so quickly that it lost effect by the time it was released, same with FFX... doesn't matter though because there are so many kick ass games coming out. Oh and I think I remember the Pres. of Rockstar saying that the hardware is basically maxed out in last months PSM