PS2: Weak!!!

[JasonhasRSI1]

Pretty darned impressive exclusives list, the likes of which we will see less and less and gaming progresses....

[ActRaiser1]

Let's be honest with ourselves here.  The triple A games that look fantastic all do one really nifty trick that the Japanese developers love to use, they insert pre-rendered graphics. 

I know, I know, the cat's out of the bag.  The world's going to end.  Seriously, does anyone think God of War's graphics/movies are all generated in real time?  Of course not, but the way in which they do it is so amazingly slick it doesn't matter.

FF-X was the first game I saw pull such a nifty trick where it actually became tough to tell what was pre-rendered and what was generated real time. 

Yes, the PS2 pales in power to both the Xbox and the Gamecube but all in all it' not how big your stick is, it's how you use it.  Or my favorite, It's not the size of the wave but the motion behind the ocean that matters.

[JasonhasRSI1]

[QUOTE=ActRaiser]Let's be honest with ourselves here.  The triple A games that look fantastic all do one really nifty trick that the Japanese developers love to use, they insert pre-rendered graphics. 

I know, I know, the cat's out of the bag.  The world's going to end.  Seriously, does anyone think God of War's graphics/movies are all generated in real time?  Of course not, but the way in which they do it is so amazingly slick it doesn't matter.

FF-X was the first game I saw pull such a nifty trick where it actually became tough to tell what was pre-rendered and what was generated real time. 

Yes, the PS2 pales in power to both the Xbox and the Gamecube but all in all it' not how big your stick is, it's how you use it.  Or my favorite, It's not the size of the wave but the motion behind the ocean that matters.


[/QUOTE]

I don't understand - does this fact somehow degrade the experience of these games? So what if they are pre-rendered as long as it all looks seamless?

[m0zart1]

[QUOTE=JasonhasRSI]I don't understand - does this fact somehow degrade the experience of these games? So what if they are pre-rendered as long as it all looks seamless?[/QUOTE]

I think he already answered that:  "Of course not, but the way in which they do it is so amazingly slick it doesn't matter."

I think it's obvious even spec-wise that the PS2 was underpowered compared to both the Gamecube and XBOX, though it had some strengths against either one.  But because it was the popular system, the one that had the most obvious marketshare over time, the developers and publishers found ways to get around the limitations, which allowed it to look pretty darned good even compared to the other two consoles.  I think that's all ActRaiser was saying.  It's like some dirty little secret in the gaming world, but the reality is, it's one of the core things that separate console game development from PC game development.

I've always been more interested in console vs. PC gaming, because given that the console is a fixed platform with only a few expansions available over its lifetime, developers really have to find new ways to push their achievements forward.  They can't often rely on hardware upgrades to do it -- they have to become inventive on the software side to a much bigger degree.  That's a limitation in consoles that I think has actually translated into a benefit for us as consumers.  Think about all of the modifications Sony had to make to the PS2 version of RE4 to put it on par with the Gamecube version -- fewer trees, a few prerendered backgrounds, fewer enemies on the screen, prerendered cut-scenes to replace the GC real-time generated versions -- yet when I played through that game I could BARELY tell the difference.  It was an achievement to make so much happen with less hardware power that few give those developers credit for.

This really goes to show what the "stuff" of the console and handheld markets is.  Graphical power has almost never determined the winner of a particular console or handheld generation.  Atari was underpowered compared to practically every well-known console of the day, with only a few exceptions.  The NES has reportedly been underpowered compared to the SMS (though I've only seen a few instances where that difference was obvious).  The N64 had more graphical power than the PS1 (though it lacked some key features, like prerendered video playback).  The Gameboy wasn't as powerful as the Lynx or Gamegear, and the DS isn't as powerful as the PSP.  And we all know how last-gen's race turned out.  About the only exception to this I can think of is the SNES vs. the Genesis.  The SNES had more graphical capabilities, and generally a better architecture than the Genesis.  About the only thing that the Genesis had over the SNES was clock speed.  Still, with the fact that that particular console race was much closer than the others I mentioned, Nintendo's platform wasn't a winner to the same degree that the Atari, NES, PS1, or PS2 were winners in their respective races.

[BigOldCar]

[QUOTE]

Given that the console is a fixed platform with only a few expansions available over its lifetime, developers really have to find new ways to push their achievements forward.

[/QUOTE]
<m0zart>

That's why I've been gaming console-exclusive.  I hated having a system powerful enough to play the latest games--but only for a few months!  And for the price of the latest, greatest video card you could have a whole console.  Plus, no one rents out PC games.  Console's the only way to go!

[feilong801]

If I may stick up for PC gaming for a second, it does have one advantage: The Indie Scene. Sure, the new download services offered in this spate of consoles supports/will support original stuff: but many times, this so called "indie" material is really stuff made by big developers, such as several Xbox Live titles made by Sierra. Nothing wrong with that, but there is still a significant barrier between the indie game developer and the console.

Take the game I'm doing the music and sound for (yes yes, a plug of sorts ), The Broken Hourglass. This is a new take on the BioWare CRPG formula (Baldur's Gate I and II) that just isn't going to be found on a console, unless it succeeds in the PC space first.

-Rob

[Sudz1]

I'm with Feilong80 and have to stick up for PC gaming.  With PC gaming, you still get great 'niche' games because it's possible for one-and-two-man teams to sit in their basement part-time and churn out something truly different and fun that huge developers and publishers would never touch.  Console game makers CANNOT afford to take risks like that as the cost of developing for a console system, with the various licensing fees and such, is much higher.  Therefore they have to stick with the tried-and-true with only slight variations so that they can pretend they've come out with something unique.  I guess that's why you get "Ridge Racer 8" and "Sonic 14" and "Mario Party 22" and sequel after sequel after sequel anymore on consoles.  Meanwhile anyone with a little programming knowledge can sit down and bang out a game of any type with any timeline he has available to him (doesn't have to worry about a system becoming obsolete with the next generation release - PC's are ever-evolving but backwards compatible for a decade or more easily) and sell it over the internet in the hopes that enough interest will be generated to make some dough and maybe even attract the attention of a big-name publisher. 

Simply put, there are no "little guys" developing for consoles.  Originality and risk-taking is frowned upon in the console world because the cost of failure is simply too high.  For every truly unique game like "Guitar Hero" (and some would argue GH isn't even all that unique) there are a dozen middling sequels.

[JasonhasRSI1]

[QUOTE=Sudz]

Simply put, there are no "little guys" developing for consoles.  Originality and risk-taking is frowned upon in the console world because the cost of failure is simply too high.
[/QUOTE]

Good points. I might point out Treasure as an exception to this point, however.

[Alienblue]

In the 8-bit and 16-bit days, computers were as fun or better than consoles. C=>64, Atari,Amiga, and my ADAM gave me lots of fun. But today they just get old so fast.

I have an old iMac with an old operating system, about 8 years old. My printer is going. A new printer would be cheaper than a print cartridge, but I'd need the latest OS which will not run on my machine. Memory is running out for games and file saves and bugs are cropping up. I have a windows 98 PC thats not much better. When you bought an Apple2 computer in 1982, it was expected to last DECADES! Now, they make computers like cars, with a basic life span of 5 years or less. You are expected to buy a new one then. As a poor person, I cannot upgrade. I have a big computer teacher freind who simply LEASES them now!

[gleebergloben1]

[QUOTE=Alienblue]In the 8-bit and 16-bit days, computers were as fun or better than consoles. C=>64, Atari,Amiga, and my ADAM gave me lots of fun. But today they just get old so fast.

I have an old iMac with an old operating system, about 8 years old. My printer is going. A new printer would be cheaper than a print cartridge, but I'd need the latest OS which will not run on my machine. Memory is running out for games and file saves and bugs are cropping up. I have a windows 98 PC thats not much better. When you bought an Apple2 computer in 1982, it was expected to last DECADES! Now, they make computers like cars, with a basic life span of 5 years or less. You are expected to buy a new one then. As a poor person, I cannot upgrade. I have a big computer teacher freind who simply LEASES them now![/QUOTE]

while it's true that computers today have a much shorter life-span when it comes to games due to memory and cpu needs, you can get a decent computer now for 500 bucks (without monitor, of course).  systems back in the 80's were a lot more expensive, and remember, back in 1983, a loaf of bread was a nickel, and you could buy a new car for 70 bucks.