How is the PS2 able to run 2007 games while it was released in 2002?

How can PS2 which was released around 2002 play games which are made in 2007 (which have high graphics)? Whereas a PC
which was a killer gamer in 2002 cant handle 2005 games with decent settings.?
Dont tell me that the PS2 was just made for gaming whereas the pc is a multipurpose machiine.
Because the PS2 core is just 300 MHZ speed plus the graphics engine isnt that great.. I just dont understand it. Pls shed some light on this topic.

 

PS2 2007 vintage games are programmed specifically for the PS2 hardware, developers simply push the hardware envelope as far as it can go.

PCs evolve in a matter of months, the premium top-end card of 2002 is a joke to use for running games like Crysis and other graphically-demanding games simply because the hardware environment programmers have to work with has changed.

 

A game console is easier to develop for because there are only a set of standard components as opposed to PCs which can have a million different set of components.

 

most pointless thread ever tbh =\, its quite simply because when they make games for a PS2, theres only so many things it can do, they cant make the game with a higher setting than the ps2 can handle, so they simply make the graphics higher and higher up until the ps2 cant handle anything any higher, and make the game

PC's are release with new technology, where as the ps2 cant have any new technology, and theres never really any higher graphics on ps2 as you go along, just newer and better AI and maybe sacrificing some things for beter textures, the ps2 games will always be capped on the graphics, theyre not on high settings, compare GTA : SA on ps2 to pc, the difference is fairly large.

 

Oh, besides all those mentioned above, PS2 runs at 640 x 480, the standard TV resolution; thus, it is even less demanding for PS2 to render the game compare to a PC that can play games upto 1920 x 1200.

 

yeah resolution is a big factor. run your pc games in 640x480 for a fair comparison.

also, games released in 2007 for the PC are probably targeted towards 2007ish hardware. depends on the game. i guess you are referring to crysis. some companies like valve are with the program and understand that a successful PC release has to give great visuals to people with the most modern hardware, and do exactly the same for people with 5 year old hardware. its called scalability. some companies seem to care less about that (crytek... cough) and, coincidentally, some companies make less money!

games released in 2007 for the ps2 are targeted for ps2 hardware. a ps2 game released today just isn't going to be on the same level as a modern PC game. the reason they keep making ps2 games is due to market forces. a lot of people still own and play on the ps2. the pc market is in a tough place even for people who own more current hardware.

 

What about the new PS3 and XBox 360 ? It's the same 640x480 resolution ?

 

The PS2 also doesn't have loads of background programs to run while playing a game and it also doesn't have something called an OS like XP to run.

 

lol, if u use component to connect your xbox 360 or ps3, it still displays in 640 x 480, but use anything else and it goes higher, untill ur using hdmi, thats when u get 1920 x 1080.

 

On your xbox360 you'll find the settings for 720i/p as well as 1080i/p, and whatever is below that 4xx I think which is your standard definition. Protip: Switch the little cable on the back from AV to HD (I think that's what it says) I played CoD4 for a full week before I thought to myself, this HD stuff sure is blown out of preportion.

 

the xbox 360 and ps3 play games in higher resolutions.

i think generally they run games in 1280x720. some games, like CoD4 (mentioned above) run in lower resolutions (1024x640)...

and SOME games are able to run in 1920x1080.

obviously this is limited by your display. if you have a normal TV, everything is running in 640x480. If you have a 1280x720 HD TV, then games will run in 1280x720 at the maximum.

 

Just a note, I always thought that sdtv's had a rez of 720x480...

 

You kind of answered your own question there. The PS2 and consoles were made to do only one thing and that is to play video games. With that you don't have to worry about hardware compatibility, software compatibility. If you look, PS2 games don't look that good and you can't really compare the newest PS2 game to the newest PC game, it's an Apple/Orange comparison.

 

Simple. Because PS2 games are made for the PS2, no matter when they're made.
A PS2 game made in 2023 will still target the PS2 hardware.

A PC game made in 2002 targeted PC hardware from 2002. PC games from 2008 targets PC hardware from 2008.

And you'll notice that a PC game from 2007 looks *a hell of a lot* better than a PS2 game from 2007.
That is why. PC games assume that the hardware gets gradually better, so they become gradually more demanding. PS2 games know that they have to work on 2002 hardware, because that's what a PS2 *is*. So they have to sacrifice a lot of graphical quality.

 

640X480 = 4:3 SD
640X720 = 4:3/16:9 DVD res
848X480 = 16:9 ED (low res wide screen)
1280X720 = 16:9 720i/p
1920X1080 = 16:9 1080i/p

Not sure on the PS3, but 95%+ of games on the 360 render at 1280X720, then are upscaled if you are displaying at 1080i/p. At least for the 360, if you are running a comperable game on both 360 and PC, if your PC is set above 1280X720, it's not really a valid comparison as the 360 is rendering to a smaller screen buffer.

 

and im sure by now they have mastered writing code for it as well and can absolutely push that console to its limits, look at God of War 2, that game was probably the best looking game for PS2, and was released last year

 

While they can run 4:3 aspect (like old TV's and monitors - 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, etc) they are designed with widescreen 16:9 in mind.

480p = 720x480
720p = 1280x720
1080i = 1920x1080

p = progressive scan
i = interlace

1080p is rare for a TV to display but becoming more common. Interlace requires two scans of the image to create the full image, but it only has to render half the information, but your framerate is half too.

 

hmmmm, i use HD cables for my consoles, so i dont really know, but when i ever used component, regardless of what happened, i just could not get any higher than 480p, even when i switched the (HD/TV) button. it would always be just crap quality.

so i use a HD 1.3 cable now , now that looks good

 

All of u say that Ps2 graphics are Crap. But when i see God of War 2 , I really wonder how they managed to improve the graphics just by better coding.

For Eg. The graphics are much better than POP Two thones on PC

 

The PS2 isn't the only console to show such "miraculous" improvement in graphics quality despite its age, the Neo Geo console games at the end of its life cycle look so much better than the games released over 10 years ago for the same console.

If I'm not mistaken 2 thrones was developed and released earlier than God of War 2. Comparing God of War 2 to random PC games doesn't make the PS2 a godly console or the PC platform a crap medium for playing games.

 

take a look at the difference between 1942 and crysis. then compared some ps2 games from its early years to its later years. you will notice a small differnce in improvment compared to the pc games.

 

Well, they pushed the system to its limits, that's it. Remember that you are mentioning the best looking game of PS2, and while the graphics looks very good (I have the game) you will notice that all is because the camera most of the time is far from the action.

 

There are a number of things that modern PC games have that PS2 game devs can't even dream of. Look at texture size and detail. Look at lighting and particle effects. Look at physics. With consoles, devs learn to squeeze every last ounce out of the system and massage their titles to fit the hardware. As mentioned, they do things like keep the camera far from the textures so you don't notice the low res. They intentionally simplify the environments to reduce lighting and particle effects they will need. They pre-render a ton of stuff (like static environmental lighting and shadows especailly) rather than run it in real time. There are a bunch of tricks they use to get things to look their best given the hardware.

 

thats true. dynamic lighting is a huge deal and is not done on the ps2. look at games like hl2 ep 2, or crysis, or CoD4, to understand dynamic lighting and shadow effects.

 

Guys, please watch the language and personal attacks...thank you.

 

The PS2 was released in 2000, not 2002 by the way. The original Xbox is the one that was released in 2002.

The PS2 has a very big userbase, that's why it's still on track. Last news I heard is that Sony is supporting ($$$) until 2009, and will publish until 2012.

 

I have to admit PS2 is one heck of a deal. Can't pass up a $129 console that has a library of hundreds if not thousands of games, and is small enough to easily take with you anywhere. You can find good bundle deals too. I got a deal with DDR packaged for $129 so my nieces and nephews could be enteratined over a weekend.

 

Its called optimisation

You see with consoles, there is only ONE configuration, and as a result, developers can make the very most of that. As time goes on, eventually yes they will hit a wall, whether it be size of visual fidelity, but at the same time, they are never doomed to the graphics of its first few years or so on the market.

Thats why i think this gen will last very long. Last time, 2 or 3 years in, PCs left consoles in the dust, but so far, both the 360 and PS3 have kept up, with the PS3 soon to release Killzone 2, set to overtake Crysis in graphics (though which one is technologically more impressive is another debate). Yeah sure, you buy the same game on PC, you can get slightly more detailed textures, a longer draw distance or more filtering, but it has hardly come to a point where consoles look last gen

 

TBH Oemenia I think it will take awhile for any PC game to have superior graphics than its console counterpart these days. Mainly because the games are being designed for a console and then ported to the PC, instead of the other way around. They have no reason to add extra effects to the PC version because they aren't expecting huge sales from the PC anyways. Thats why the current generation of consoles will last so long, they won't become outdated by the PC (like the source engine/doom 3 engine did to the ps2/xbox)

 

Crapy graphics...

 

We'll see. I wouldn't put it past Valve to put out Source 2 or something.

But if you want to see where the difference comes in these days, its less graphics than content. When you have to shove everything on one DVD (yeah I know consoles support multi disc games, but when was the last time you saw one of those), you simply can't have as much content, as much game, as you can on a multi-DVD install for a computer. The downside is that most games these days are ported from console to PC, so this advantage won't be fully expolited most of the time.

 

While I agree with your point of view, what do you mean by that the PC version does not have better graphics (be it textures or effects) than the consoles? For example both Gears of War and Bioshock can achieve better graphics than the console counterparts. I haven't heard otherwise, do you know of any example that follows what you said?

 

The PC games have better graphics. Granted both the X360 & PS3 have awsome CPUs, the graphics card are still in the Geforce 7800GTX-> Radeon X1900XT range

 

the last time a console game looked better than pc was nov 22, 2005, when the xbox 360 was released. Pc's have come a very, very long way from that time. 90% of modern pc games, with the right hardware, will look far superior to the consoles. I mean gears of war is a perfect example, and it can be played at 1920 res. This argument has been answered so many times already.

Crysis....consoles could never output that game at high settings, even at 640x480 res, but my laptop card can play it 1440x900 all high w/ custom very high .cfgs.

 

Yeah, 2005->2008. Geforce 6800Ultra->9800GX2. There's a big difference

Oh well, the Xbox 3 should be announced soon. It's already been 2 years and a half, the lifespan of the original...

 

The original XBOX lifespan was four years (Nov 2001 - Nov 2005), and it was only four years in order to beat Sony to the punch for the next gen console. However, I wouldn't be surprised if you started to see a lot of detail regarding the next gen Xbox end of this year.

 

OK, was pretty sure it was nov 2002

 

They are targeting longer lifespans for all consoles these days. Some people in the industry are even talking about 10 year lifespans for the current gen of consoles. Don't expect new consoles that soon, I'd say. The costs associated with developing and marketing a new platform, along with the costs and politiking required to get devs on board for a new gen of consoles, are creating a very strong pressure in the industry to extend the lifespans of consoles by as much as possible. I would not expect a new console for at least 5 years after the last gen.

 

I hope they jump right from these consoles to the holodeck.

Seriously though, how can they expect 10 years? They're going to hit a wall and not be able to optimize anything to look better. This could be good though, maybe devs will start worrying about gameplay and story more than they are now.

 

exactly, better story and gameplay is the most important. However when i turn on my desktop, im ready to be blown away by graphics...playing crysis currently at 1680x1050 very close to max settings is very nice, even if the game isnt the best.

btw, 10 years for a console is wayy to much, but its what they say the ps3 will do, even though they have ps4 already planned. idk, every since i moved to pc gaming i dont like consoles anymore

 

What was the lifetime of the gameboy? I wouldn't say 10 years is too long.

 

you cant really compare gameboy to consoles. Yes its a console but its a handheld console. Remember that a new gameboy at one time would come out almost every 2 years or less. Like gameboy to gameboy color, to advance, to ds. The gameboy lasted 10 years of great gaming but a new system came out only a couple years later. Since video games in consoles arent making as much as a huge leap as they did years ago, like 8 bit to 16 bit to 64 bit nintendo, consoles will last longer and longer. Going from gamecube to Wii graphically isnt that much of a difference. The ps3's processor may last long but the graphics card wont. Makes me wonder why the did a 8 cell cpu and then some 7 series level cards glued together, i think it was two 7 series cards each with 256mb of vram modded

 

You're talking about a 250-500 dollar piece of hardware. Even as a loss leader, it can't be too expensive. Also, think about that even 1080p is less than the highest end PC resolutions right now. 720p, the res most console games are at, is less than even 1280X800. A console GPU simply has to do far less work than a high end PC GPU. They can get away with crummier performance. I know resolution isn't the only thing that GPUs scale with, but devs can develop around the limitations pretty well.

I think from here on, consoles will be much more generational rather than iterational (new words are fun). Untill there are a significant number of major improvements available to implement, console makers will simply make do with older hardware, and consumers for the most part will be none the wiser.

 

Erm yeah. I've played both console and PC versions of some games and they always seem to look better on the PC.

 

It's so sad that PC gaming industry's growth is sluggish comparing to console sector.

 

A lot of that has to do with piracy which software companies have not found the answer on how to combat it. And it has gotten worse in recent years with torrent sites.

EA recently said they are pulling their flagship Madden game from the PC. The Xbox 360 and PS3 visually compete with the best PC's. Developers find they can target specific machines rather than 10's of thousands of PC configurations.

You'll also notice most PS3 or Xbox 360 games cost $59.99 and in some cases even more. It's also harder to pirate a console game as you have to modify the machine to play bootleg games. The average console gamer is not going to risk that.

 

I can almost see pc gaming becoming a small niche market. No more lan parties....
I hate to imagine people all playing on identical machines with same settings and everything. No glowing tubes, LED fans, kickass paintjobs. big generalizations but you see my point.

 

Because:

- PS2s only have to support standard definition resolution
- Developers have lots of experience with the PS2 (it was actually released in 2000)
- There's more incentive to make the games play well and look nice since the audience is bigger than PC, even if the graphical effects are "dumbed down" or obtained with "cheating," like with video instead of being in-game. (the money is in selling games, for Sony, the publishers, and the developers. Sony actually ate the loss of selling hardware for so cheap in the beginning. In PC gaming, hardware companies have a motive to ensure games run poorly on anything but the newest parts. Somehow, developers and publishers follow suit and make the games as shiny as possible.

 

That formula of the dog chasing it's tail has worked for them for many years. In fact back in the 90's most PC sales were to the growing gaming market. Recently that's come to bite the PC market because consoles such as the PS360 can look as good and in some cases better visually than a high end PC. And cost far less money.

 

guys what abt the Fifa series, it looks awesome on the PS3, 360. i dont think that yet PC's can achieve that graphical quality and achieve a stable fps.