PS2: Weak!!!

[a1]

[QUOTE=ActRaiser]

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. 

[/QUOTE]

Clearly I have a harder time differentiating between the two, because I don't even know the difference. What is it exactly?

[Alienblue]

"In 1983 a loaf of bread was a nickel.."

EXCUSE me, I lived in 1983! A loaf of bread was a whopping 69 cents, and a new matchbox car was $1.19.

If you compare power to power of course computers are cheaper now. A 640K PC in 1983 cost $6,000 with a MONOCHROME monitor! you can get a Zillion gigabit one now for less than $1,000. WITH color monitor and printer thrown in. Electronics invaribly become cheaper. I paid $800 for my 35 inch composite TV, I could get one for $300 now, if I could FIND a composite! The Intellivision cost a whopping $400 when it came out in 1981...it only had 4K, a very slow microprocessor (16 bit but slower than 2600) and very few games. Imagine paying $999 for a new, untried game system today. I doubt many would!

[ActRaiser1]

[QUOTE=a]

[QUOTE=ActRaiser]

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. 

[/QUOTE]

Clearly I have a harder time differentiating between the two, because I don't even know the difference. What is it exactly?

[/QUOTE]

Pre-rendered means artists/animators painstakingly create individual frames and capture each frame individually at usually a lot higher resolution (less jaggies).  So, you got lots of highly detailed polygons, lighting, etc moving everywhere which way.   To render a single frame takes quite a bit of CPU juice due to everything going on within that shot.

Real-time renders on the otherhand are generated with a lot fewer polygons, lower resolution (more jaggies), light effects, etc and happen directly on the console itself.  With really smooth textures you can have the appearance of a lot more polygons then what you really have.

So, with FF-X if you notice during the battle screens the resolution runs at say 320 x 240 (just tossing numbers out here).  Then the screen zooms in on a close up of a character and slowly blends in a movie of a pre-rendered scene of highly detailed characters.  They do it in a really smooth fashion same thing for God of War.  It's a bit more apparent on a big screen tv as you can see the difference in resolutions immediately in the character models.  Still makes for an awesome look.

So as a rule of thumb Japanese developers use pre-rendered scenes causing RPGs to span multiple DVDs.  While Western developers on the other hand like to use in game engine renders which allows for a game like Oblivion that's 200+ hours long on a single DVD.  Neither approach is better than the other just different.

[BigOldCar]

I personally love these graphs:

http://curmudgeongamer.com/2006/05/history-of-console-prices-or-500-aint.html

I'm posting the link because I haven't seen it here before, so if it's old news to you,  please don't come down too hard on me.  It shows console prices in both absolute and relative terms.

[Mephisto]

[QUOTE=Sudz]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.
[/QUOTE]

=D Take games like Warcraft III... Look at all the mods that PC gamers have put on it!

[David Drolet]

Ive never liked the ps2 and ill never do because

Of the excessive load time
Because the ps2 duration is low
Because ive encountered many more CD error than any other system
Most game are better on other system.
Most of the exclusive game for the system are pure crap

[andrew]

[QUOTE=David Drolet]Ive never liked the ps2 and ill never do because

Of the excessive load time
Because the ps2 duration is low
Because ive encountered many more CD error than any other system
Most game are better on other system.
Most of the exclusive game for the system are pure crap
[/QUOTE]

excessive load time? that's purely based off of which games you play.

[Alienblue]

I enjoy my slimline PS2:
* Graphics not as good as Xbox but still top notch
* Has the better driving games that play GREAT with
the WILLIAMS steering wheel (TOCA 3!)
* Has the biggest selection of last gen hits.
* Is backwards compatible with all my PSX games.
* And finally, it is STILL SELLING better than Ps3!

PS2 RULEZ!

[BanjoPickles1]

Jason, you remind me of Shawn. You make it sound like Nintendo is an irrelevent company, always has been, and Sony is the end all/be all of video games. Should I feel like any less of a gamer because, god forbid, I prefer a classic nintendo game to a "hardcore" game like Gears of War and the like? The PS2 really was the weakest, spec wise, of all three systems! That, my friend, isn't opinion...it's fact! Look at all the multi-platform games released across the board: Sonic Heroes was virtually unplayable on the ps2 due to rampant slowdown, Max Payne 2 had horrid slowdown whenever there was more than one enemy on the screen at a time, it seemed, etc. Resident Evil 4 is another prime example. It pushed ps2 to the limit and still wasn't AS graphically complex as the GC version was(colors were a bit washed out, not as sharp, etc.).

I can accept that Sony owned two generations(I, personally, LOVED the ps1) so why is it so friggin' hard for you to accept that Nintendo has a relevent place in this business as well? So what there are so many "Nintendo lovers" on this site?? You are dealing with a page that has alot of gamers in their 30's/40's who have a soft-spot for companies like Atari, Nintendo, and Sega...three companies that have the kind of rich gaming history that Sony wishes it had! Besides, Sony's making their fair share of screw ups but you're right there, pledging allegience, not even acknowledging that all three are making their mistakes. I like MS, I like Nintendo, but PS2, to me, is about as interesting as a plain white-picket fence.

[KanYozakura]

The PS2 seems kind of like a CDi to me...sure, it CAN play games, but I mostly just use it for video discs (AKA DVDs).  Most of the time, if I want to play a multiplatform game I'll get it for the Xbox or Gamecube.  Don't get me wrong, I play my PS2 all the time; it just doesn't feel like a gaming machine to me.