Is PS2 holding back other systems progress.

Ebraum

Ebraum

CAGiversary!
I am no fanboy, I have all three systems. But I have to wonder if when developers are designing games for all three system's, the limitations of the PS2 are affecting the other system's games. Take Madden, POP or NFSU for example. They look good on the Xbox & Cube, smoke and reflections, or other little details are a bit better than on the PS2, but the graphics don't even come close to PGR2, Ninja Gaiden or F-Zero, which are exclusive title's developed for more powerful system's. So, are devloper's holding back on us just to get their games on all three system's.
 
i dont know, its possible. it is a well known fact that the ps2 is a hard console to develop for just b/c of how the hardware was built. but the ps2 has the a larger audience then the gc and xbox combined so thats why developers probally do put some work into it, so the ps2 owners dont get left out (and they get more money).
 
In reply to the subject, in a word, yes. Instead of F-Zero for GameCube, you should be pointing out stuff like Rogue Squadron II/III.
 
I don't believe that the PS2 is holding games back as far as innovation goes, just graphics. You're right though; if you compare system exclusives on the Xbox and GCN to multiplatforms, the majority of the exclusives are better looking.
 
Yes, it is....because it makes the most money. Add the"pain in the ass to develop for" and the "im lazy" and of course "it costs too much more" and you get sub par ports. Look at UBI's games though, and you'll notice they take thier time and works downwards...now thats a good working company.
 
Yes, Ubi takes it's time before releasing , tweaking for each system. As far as Rogue Squadron vs F-zero , it is an awsome looking game. But so is f-zero, but at 60 frames per sec, with no slowdown.
 
It also depends on if another studio did the port rather than the studio that worked on the original. Take for example, BG: Dark Alliance was far worse on the cube than the PS2.
 
[quote name='Ebraum']Port's are a completly different issue. I'm talking more about development.[/quote]

Well, then no, PS2 is not holding people back, unless they plan on making the game for all systems (excluding ubi). Look at what Tecmo can do with the Xbox and what Capcom can do with the Cube...so far from PS2 quality its funny.
 
I believe that it probably is holding back the quality of multiplatform releases, but in fairness to the PS2, it was released a year before both xbox and gamecube.
 
...which means everything should be light years ahead in quality...or at least "a year".

yes Gran Turismo 4 looks gorgeous, but it took them an extra year worth to get clse to wat PGR2 did last year.
 
Yeah...sony just didnt give a crap and knew people would buy it no matter what...and with it coming out a year or so before Xbox and Gcube...That is the only reason they have more of a fanbase and more games...I think if xbox and gamecube had launched with ps2 then this gen. would have been a whole nother ball game
 
[quote name='karmapolice620']Yeah...sony just didnt give a crap and knew people would buy it no matter what...and with it coming out a year or so before Xbox and Gcube...That is the only reason they have more of a fanbase and more games...I think if xbox and gamecube had launched with ps2 then this gen. would have been a whole nother ball game[/quote]

if the xbox and GC came out the same time as the PS2 they wouldn't be the systems that are today because they would have come out A YEAR EARLIER. Also I don't think that the PS2 is holding back other games because they still look great on other systems too. You could say look at Ninga Gaiden compared to devil may cry or somthing, but then look at NFL Fever compared to Madden.
 
"You could say look at Ninga Gaiden compared to devil may cry or somthing, but then look at NFL Fever compared to Madden. " no, comparing fever to madden isnt right, but fever to 989's shit is more appropriet. Compare ESPN(on xbox) to Madden (on ps2) and its a world of differnce. then compare both xbox versions and you STILL have a noticeable difference.
 
NO

The ps2 isn't holding anyone back. If a developer CHOOSES to streamline development and basically make the same game for all 3 consoles that is the developers fault and not Sony's. Every developer is free to make seperate and distinct versions of their games for each system - they just choose the cheapest route and don't.
 
compare the xbox version of madden to the ps2 one...compare pgr1 to gt3...soul calibur 2 on gc or xbox to virtua fighter...the graphics cant compare
 
If Van Helsing wasn't developed for the
PS2 & X-box, could it have looked like Riddock?
I beleive developers use the PS2 model as a starting point, a base model, then add thing's like better partical effect's and so on for the system's that handle them better. If the PS2 had better spec's, it would raise that starting point. I know it's a year older, & I've plaid the hell out of my PS2, but I think we would benifit if developers made game's for system's with higher spec's as the starting point, and then work their way down tweaking instead of the other way around.
 
I don't think it matters. Sure pretty graphics are nice, but that don't make it a good game. I think I'll choose a great playing game over a great looking game.

As for the PS2 being hard to develop for, developers have been developing games for quite some time with no problems. Its pretty dumb to think that a game developer has yet to come to grips with how to create a game. When was the last time you heard about the Playstation 2 being hard to develop on, 2 years ago?
 
[quote name='vamp21']I don't think it matters. Sure pretty graphics are nice, but that don't make it a good game. I think I'll choose a great playing game over a great looking game.[/quote]

VERY WELL SAID!
 
[quote name='vamp21']I don't think it matters. Sure pretty graphics are nice, but that don't make it a good game. I think I'll choose a great playing game over a great looking game. [/quote]

That is certainly true, but ask yourself- what if that great playing game could have been a great looking game as well if it didn't have to tone down graphical development in order to allow the game to run on PS2? And yeah, sure it isn't sony's fault game devs don't concentrate on making better graphics for the systems that can handle them, but the graphics are still worse regardless of blame. Again, if the PS2 were released a year later with xbox and GCN, I can guarantee you that multiplatform releases would look better than they do now, because devs could make great graphics without having to worry about them functioning on a system with lesser hardware. They wouldn't have to start low and then spend money fixing them up. They would just start on top already, graphically. There really is no debating this.
 
[quote name='vamp21']I don't think it matters. Sure pretty graphics are nice, but that don't make it a good game. I think I'll choose a great playing game over a great looking game.

As for the PS2 being hard to develop for, developers have been developing games for quite some time with no problems. Its pretty dumb to think that a game developer has yet to come to grips with how to create a game. When was the last time you heard about the Playstation 2 being hard to develop on, 2 years ago?[/quote]

Because of the way that the PS2's hardware is arranged, I believe it requires much more use of assembly code, whereas many Xbox games are written entirely in C/C++. That makes a world of difference in development terms. And developers don't bitch and moan about it as much now because various parties have developed toolkits to make development easier.

Good gameplay is key, and it's definitely what we all should be looking for in a game, but I'm pretty sure the point of this thread was about graphics. And, lets face it, when a game is slated to come out for three consoles simultaneously, the game is going to look nearly identicle on all three. After all, developing separate versions would require reworking of various in-game engines and re-designing character models and environments to have higher/lower polygon counts. As it is, multi-platform games only seem to take advantage of stuff that's supported specifically by the hardware and is easy to do using toolkits that have been provided - for example, the Xbox makes it very easy to do more dynamic looking lighting and shadowing. The PS2's graphical prowess is below that of the GC and the XB. So, it would be fair to say that the PS2 is holding the other versions back.
 
The PS2's graphical prowess is below that of the GC and the XB. So, it would be fair to say that the PS2 is holding the other versions back.

No it wouldn't.

Do you people realize that you are blaming the hardware for the developers inability or refusal to take full advantage of each system individually?

The whole premise behind this thread is stupid anyway. Developers are NOT sitting at their pc's saying "damn that PS2 for not having the capabilities of the xbox - you are making my life a living hell trying to make this game!"
 
The fact is if you develop a game for all three systems you go with the lowest common denominator and then port it to the more powerful systems. You do not write three separate versions of one game. That is too expensive.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Do you people realize that you are blaming the hardware for the developers inability or refusal to take full advantage of each system individually?

The whole premise behind this thread is stupid anyway. Developers are NOT sitting at their pc's saying "damn that PS2 for not having the capabilities of the xbox - you are making my life a living hell trying to make this game!"[/quote]

I certainly wasn't blaming the hardware when I said that it was a fair assumption. I was just making an observation. It's not like this bothers me much - there's hardly any multi-platform games that I buy. And, yeah, developers are lazy. And cheap when they can be. They don't care which hardware has what capabilities, they just care about what can be done on all three and develop what can be done the easiest on all three.
 
[quote name='Indiana']The fact is if you develop a game for all three systems you go with the lowest common denominator and then port it to the more powerful systems. You do not write three separate versions of one game. That is too expensive.[/quote]

Exactly, that is the point I was trying to make. The PS2 is currently the lowest common denominator, so is it holding the other's systems back.
I'm not blaming the hardware , it's up to the developer's, and their budget's. Just gald they don't use the GBA build for their starting point.
 
The PS2 is currently the lowest common denominator, so is it holding the other's systems back. I'm not blaming the hardware...

You just contradicted yourself and you ARE blaming the hardware.
 
Umm......... it's up to the developer's, and their budget's.

The hardware isn't keeping the developer's from makeing different builds, or making them use the PS2 as the starting point. It is up to them, not the hardware.
 
[quote name='Scrubking'] The PS2's graphical prowess is below that of the GC and the XB. So, it would be fair to say that the PS2 is holding the other versions back.

No it wouldn't.

Do you people realize that you are blaming the hardware for the developers inability or refusal to take full advantage of each system individually?

The whole premise behind this thread is stupid anyway. Developers are NOT sitting at their pc's saying "damn that PS2 for not having the capabilities of the xbox - you are making my life a living hell trying to make this game!"[/quote]

You're right- they aren't saying that. They are saying, "well, let's make the base code for this game have the ability to run on the lowest common demoninator (PS2) and then try to build it up a little bit for the ones that can do better." If ps2 had both more powerful hardware and was easier to develop for, than the devs could start at a higher level. They aren't complaining ps2 makes it difficult to make games- they are simply going along with what they are given. The argument that it is the fault of the devs and not the hardware is, without a doubt, just plain stupid. Why? Because the devs need to make money too- we shouldn't expect them to spend extra time to build each game from ground up on each console. It is completely fair to say that the end product would be better if the consoles were on equal footing in terms of hardware and ease of development. But they aren't- the ps2 behind, for no other reason than it was released earlier. Secondly, and most importantly, if you look at the games developed specifically for each consoles- ps2 are easily the worst looking. These games WERE made being able to take full advantage of the hardware, and since there aren't any ps2 games that look like ninja gaiden, it is fair to say that the ps2 simply cannot handle that type of graphical quality.

Look, scrubking, we get it. You love ps2. You hate xbox. You don't exactly seem like the best person to get an opinion on this from, because it is doubtlessly biased.
 
Look, basically the point of this topic is to ask, if the PS2 or whatever system has lesser spec's, had better spec's. Would the other console's benifit.
 
[quote name='Ebraum']Look, basically the point of this topic is to ask, if the PS2 or whatever system has lesser spec's, had better spec's. Would the other console's benifit.[/quote]

YES.
 
Well, if that's what you're asking- no the other consoles wouldn't benefit. We as gamers would, because multiplatform releases would look better, but in terms of helping the other consoles it would not help. In fact, it might even hurt the other systems, because if they didn't have superior graphics to hold over ps2, then there wouldn't be as much of a reason to get them over it if you could only choose one system.
 
[quote name='Ebraum']Look, basically the point of this topic is to ask, if the PS2 or whatever system has lesser spec's, had better spec's. Would the other console's benifit.[/quote]

That is funny.

The point of this topic is to bash the PS2 and say "look the ps2 has lesser specs and because of it a lot of games suckz0rs1!!!"

[quote name='stupid ass']Look, scrubking, we get it. You love ps2. You hate xbox. You don't exactly seem like the best person to get an opinion on this from, because it is doubtlessly biased.[/quote]

You are an idiot. Have you bothered to look at the topic you are posting in - a topic that is about putting down the ps2 and ignorantly trying to blame it for games not being as good as they could be? You are the idiots who are biased not me. You guys bash the ps2 and then try to tell me that I am biased? Give me a break.

I am one of the very few who have posted here who realize how stupid it is to blame a piece of hardware for how games are made on OTHER pieces of hardware that have no technical relation to the first.

Get this through your little brain - if developers don't take full advantage of the other consoles tech it's because they don't want to NOT because they can't.
 
The problem is that when a developer tends to develop a game multiplatform, they tend to go for the PS2 as the lead version, and that's why a lot of GC and Xbox versions tend to look close to the PS2 version. I'm personally getting a bit sick of that. It would be nice if they started developing Xbox down to PS2, that way you can dumb down the textures and effects with each version you do.

There are some occaisions where the Xbox version (or GC) will look better than the PS2 version, and that's pretty much when the releases are staggered. Look at Pandora Tomorrow (or the first Splinter Cell). It was developed and then published on the Xbox first, and as a result, it looks better, because the developers designed the game around the Xbox hardware. Then they can go back to doing the GC and PS2 versions, and work around their hardware, so at least the game looks pretty representative of it's technology. Then as we saw in Burnout 2, the PS2 version was released first, then the GC and Xbox versions came out 5 or so months later with improved controls (I heard that the PS2 version had a "dead zone" in it's steering/turning), sharper textures, better particle effects, better lighting, and a more solid framerate.

So, the real problem is that when you have multiplatform games, most of the time the PS2 version is the lead version (as it will probably be released first and make the most money). Only when a developer takes more time to optimize the port is the time when the game won't look like a PS2 game on the system. At least there are the console exclusives made available specifically for one console, so at least there's something to show what a system can do, and that the game will look better than most multiplatform titles.
 
Get this through your little brain - if developers don't take full advantage of the other consoles tech it's because they don't want to NOT because they can't.

That's what I have been saying. I'm not bashing the friggin hardware.


The topic is asking a question, that is all. I have all 3 system's. I have put much time into all 3 system's. I'm not married to any of them.
On a multi platform title, I will buy the one for the console I think it will be better on. Graphics, controller, so on. But I do believe, if they did not build on the PS2 as there starting point, the other system's would have better looking games.
Ofcourse developer's are gonna produce games for Sony's system, their installed base is huge.It's all about money. But the bar could be raised.
 
[quote name='Ebraum']Get this through your little brain - if developers don't take full advantage of the other consoles tech it's because they don't want to NOT because they can't.

That's what I have been saying. I'm not bashing the friggin hardware.


The topic is asking a question, that is all. I have all 3 system's. I have put much time into all 3 system's. I'm not married to any of them.
On a multi platform title, I will buy the one for the console I think it will be better on. Graphics, controller, so on. But I do believe, if they did not build on the PS2 as there starting point, the other system's would have better looking games.
Ofcourse developer's are gonna produce games for Sony's system, their installed base is huge.It's all about money. But the bar could be raised.[/quote]


The cost of developing one title is extremelly expensive. It is fiscally irresponsible to develop a multiplatform title that highlights each console's strength. Furthemore, since the majority of game publishers are publicly traded companies, the shareholders and the board of directors would frown heavily upon an expanded budget of that size for a diminished return. Any publisher that wastes money will shortly be out of business or corporate take-over bait. To summarize, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a developer to build an optimized game for every platform.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']The point of this topic is to bash the PS2 and say "look the ps2 has lesser specs and because of it a lot of games suckz0rs1!!!"[/quote]
I'm curious where you've seen this. Again, this topic seems to just be making a general observation. Who said the PS2 sucks? All that was said was that Ninja Gaiden most likely couldn't be put on a PS2.

[quote name='Scrubking']I am one of the very few who have posted here who realize how stupid it is to blame a piece of hardware for how games are made on OTHER pieces of hardware that have no technical relation to the first.[/quote]
I think you're one of the very few people who have posted here defending the PS2 when it hasn't been attacked.
And, as robogriff stated, how games are made for the PS2 do affect how they are made for other pieces of hardware because of development costs. Companies cannot afford to put the resources into optimizing one piece of software for three pieces of hardware. It makes no economic sense.
 
I'm curious where you've seen this. Again, this topic seems to just be making a general observation. Who said the PS2 sucks? All that was said was that Ninja Gaiden most likely couldn't be put on a PS2.

I think you're one of the very few people who have posted here defending the PS2 when it hasn't been attacked.

How is saying that a system is single handedly holding back the gaming industry because of it's hardware limitations not an attack? The topic question is oozing with allusions, and the only thing that remains is to just come out and say that the ps2 sucks and has crappy specs. If the question was - "do developers hinder game potential with mulit-console development", it would be a different story.

And, as robogriff stated, how games are made for the PS2 do affect how they are made for other pieces of hardware because of development costs. Companies cannot afford to put the resources into optimizing one piece of software for three pieces of hardware. It makes no economic sense.

I agree with this statement, but I also see this as a choice and not an unwanted roadblock heaped upon them by the PS2. Was Ion Storm held back by the PS2 when they made Invisible War? Are they being held back when they release Thief:DS? NO. This company is taking full advantage of the xbox hardware in spite of PS2's hardware. So is the ps2 holding back other system's progress? Obviously not!
 
As long as there's more than one system, and Multi-Platform titles. The weaker system will effect game development of the Multi-platform title on the higher spec systems no matter who the manufaturer is, be it MS, Sony, Nintendo, Sega or Lego .
 
GO AHEAD AND TRY TO BREAK ME DOWN SONY LOVERS BUT HELL YEAH THERE SLOWIN DOWN PROGRESS FOR OTHER SYSTEMS. ITS LIKE WA GAME WHERE YOU HAVE TO PROTECT A HOSTAGE AND THERE LIFE SUCKS SO IT TAKES FOREVER .YEAH....PS2 IS THE HOSTAGE GETTING PROTECTED OR SAVED RATHER FROM GC AND XBOX. SURE THEY HAVE MORE GAMES WHICH SEEMS TO BE PS2 LOVERS ONLY DEFENSE IN AN ARGUMENT BUT QUALITY IS CRAP. LOOK AT GTA FOR INSTANCE. GREAT GAME PLAY BUT HAGING OUT IN THE POLE POSITION CLUB IS QUITE RETARDED SINCE THE GRAPHICS SUCK BIG TIME. AND HOW ABOUT RESIDENT EVIL. PS2 NEVER LOOKS GOOD. I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY PPL GET EXCITED ABOUT NFSU ON THE PS2. I MEAN, CMON! LOOK AT ALL THE UGLY JAGGIES AS COMPARED TO THE BOX. ALSO THE HARDWARE IS BUILT SO CHEAP. THE CD TRAY SCARES ME WHEN I PUT A GAME IN. ITS SO FLIMSY. SURE XBOX WAYS A TON BUT I DONT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT. GC IS TOP-LOADED WHCH IS THE BEST WAY TO GO IN MY OPINION AND ITS SMALL AND PORTABLE. IF ALL GAMES WERE BUILT TO GC AND XBOX STANDARDS THEY WOULD LOOK INCREDIBLE. BUT NOOOOOO....STUPID PS2 SCREAMS "PLEASE DONT LEAVE ME BEHIND!" DAMN PS2 AND ITS CRAP. THE ONLY REASON I PLAY ON SUCH GARBAGE IS DDR. I MUST SAY THAT THE XBOX DDR SUCKED. WHAT WAS KONAMI THINKING. THIS COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN THE GREATEST ONLNE PLAYABLE GAME NEXT TO HALO.
 
AND ONE MORE THING. ITS 3 YEARS OLDER AND IS FINALLY DROPPING THE PRICE. SONY IS BY FAR THE CHEAPEST AND MOST GREEDIEST COMPANY. CHEAP HARDWARE BUT HUGE PRICETAG.
 
my 2 cents. i think tecmo is holding up gameplay. everytime i hear something about a tecmo, it's all about the graphics and the boobies. DOA sucks. donkey penis.
 
wow have you even played a tecmo game?! they sure do kick ass in graphics dep't but any gamer knows its all about gameplay as well and they by far have some of the best. specially team ninja. and yes, ill admit i put 27 hours into doax. oooh tans and suits that only cover nipples. mmmm.....3d rendered women.
 
You can turn things around and say that the PS2 has benefitted from the existence of more powerful platforms. Developers really don't squeeze everything from a system untiil somebody else raises the bar. For instance, the Commodore 64 was a very popular game platform but when the Amiga became the new high-end platform C-64 programmers managed to do amazingly more with the old 8-bit than they'd ever achieved previously.

I suspect PS2 developers are likewise challenged by the best of GameCube and Xbox work.

While it's true that for many multiplatform titles the PS2 serves as the lowest common denominator that would still be true if it fell inbetween the two copeting consoles in terms of power. The immensely greater installed base makes the PS2 the priority platform for most project due to the promise of a better ROI more than any innate appeal of any of the platforms. The number of potential sales will always trump the number of polygons.

This hasn't stopped little enhancements from being added to the ports of PS2 originated games. The Xbox version of Crash Bandicoot: Wrath of Cortex added a cool fur shading effect and a few improved lighting effects. This might have been a nice asset if the Xbox version hadn't been released so ridiculously long after the PS2 version. Scheduling favoritism can hurt just as much as not getting your platform fully exploited.

Ultimately it's up to Nintendo and Microsoft to convince developers to make the extra investment in added features for their respective platforms. If they cannot convince the EA's of the world that the added time and cost will come back to them in added sales they have only themselves to blame for trailing Sony by such a massive number.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top