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

Believe me it can. I have FIFA 2007 on PC and Xbox, looks better on a PC.

 

It's awesome. I have it on the 360 since it's the better version and I own both consoles. EA has made statements to the effect that they plan on pulling the plug on all their PC sports titles. Madden and I think NHL is no more starting this year.

If you've noticed they have made no effort in improving their PC sports games visually.

 

I think that as long as people still buy their PCs for other things, there will always be a market for PC games. People still need a place to play RTS games, and their MMOs.

 

yea playing an mmorpg sucks on a console, isnt age of conan coming to xbox 360?

 

I think you're confusing component and composite !

Component displays any chosen resolution upto 1920 x 1080.

The marketing machine tells everyone HDMI is better than component. Most people agree, because that's what the saleswoman told them in Comet or Currys.

It's down to personal preference, and actual equipment used.

Most cheaper HD sets will always give their best Picture quality with HDMI, and that's another reason why many say it is the best method of connection, because lower quality sets don't generally give even a comparable picture through Component (some even don't support HD resolutions through component !) However, higher-end TV's, designed with the enthusiast in mind are a different kettle of fish. I connect my 360 to my Panasonic TH42PX600 via component, because in my opinion, it has the edge over the HDMI connection.

 

I agree, the 360 has been lead platform for just about every multiplat, but thats mainly due to the fact that the 360 is still pretty on par with PCs in general.

Again Crysis is the big exception, but after that, i feel theres no game on PC that truely outshines consoles. Like i said, yes Gears may look better on PC, but does it make the 360 version look like poop? Far from it. Also, im waiting to see how Far Cry 2 will turn out, which is technologically superior to Crysis

360 games have kept up with PC games in graphical quality, and i feel that respective to their times, the 360 is more powerful than the XBOX. As a result, they dont need a brand new console, mainly because their current console is doing fine and isnt powered starved just yet

With that said, MS and Sony arent doing too well, their hardware is expensive and complicated, and their sales arent what they expected. For that reason, they are going to support these consoles for a LONG time, its much better for them to continuously reduce the cost of their systems and to instead support them through high quality games that will move consoles. They abandoned the XBOX early because it was chewing through their money, and it was hardly selling any software. This time round, MS are making a profit on each console sold, selling FAR FAR FAR more software, and seeing the console get steadily cheaper (65nm GPU this summer and then unified CP/GPU chip next year).

 

Umm hes talking about 07 to 08, and 08 looks better by a lot. Yes on PC you can play 07 at a higher res and all, but it doesnt mean that it looks better

 

The Xbox 360 has 512MB system RAM and 10MB embedded memory for graphics. PCs have 2GB RAM and 256MB v-ram commonly. The 360 has 48 stream processors. Many dedicated GPUs have 96. The 360 uses (I think) shader model 2.0, and (I'm sure) DX9. PCs are on shader 3.0 and DX10. The 360 uses a 3 core 3.2GHz CPU. PCs are cracking 3GHz, and have quad cores. 360 games are required to run without necessity of having an HDD, PC games all install on to HDD.

I can't possibly see how anyone would think a 360 could outclass a modern PC. The 360 didn't even outclass top of the line PCs when it was brand new. It may be on par subjectively, but not objectively, and only subjectively because devs use tricks.

 

Higher resolution and high settings? - Sorry it looks better on a PC.

 

You said youve only played 07 on 360 and PC, how would you know what 08 looks like = |

 

I have 08 on the PC and it looks awesome, as expected, haven't played it on the 360. But the PC version always looks better and I don't think it's any different with 08.

 

Wait, have you seen 07 or not?

Regardless, im starting to think youre assuming all this, because i can right now confirm that 08 on 360 looks better than 07 on PC, yes the PC version is sharper, but the models for example look a WHOLE lot better on 08, they were pretty plastic on 07, especially Wayne Rooney, and those stares, dont get me started

 

That's what I said before. So of course I've played 07, not assuming anything. I have FIFA 08 on the PC. I never said anything about comparing FIFA 07 on the PC to FIFA 08 on the 360......

 

They phone in the PC ports these days. If the PC version looks worse than console, it's not because the PC doesn't have the power to look better, it's becuase the devs/publisher cheaped out on the PC version.

 

My bad, i thought that, sorry = (

Regardless, i thought that EAs cancellation of sports for PC included 08, and he was talking about 360 08 looking better than 07 PC.

 

How does this affect how fun games are?

 

Hes talking about hardware and graphics, and speaks the truth. Consoles right now are significantly less powerful, but their hardware is more than adequate to make games look good because of the fact that devs are learning greater use of them

 

The title of this thread is "How is the PS2 able to run 2007 games while it was released in 2002?" Not, "How are 2007 PS2 games still fun?" but that is not the title of the thread. However, as to fun, I highly doubt people would say that console games are on balance more fun than PC games.

 

GoW & Bioshock can achieve better graphics than their console counterparts only because you can crank up the resolution and the AA/AF. I was more referring to the days when PC games would look better than consoles because of added textures and effects. For example when HDR Lighting and advanced shadows were added to the PC versions of HL2: Lost Coast and HL2: Episode 1 they put their console equivalents to shame. If you compare Bioshock PC and Bioshcok Xbox360 at the same resolution to each other they are not noticeably different, while comparing HL2: Episode 1 to HL2 (xbox) you will notice the difference...and also they could not get HL2: Episode 1 to the xbox because it didnt support HDR.

What im saying is that most games are now developed for the console (oblivion, GoW, bioshock, etc) and then ported to the PC. This means that system requirements on the PC will be pretty similar for the next 5+ years (because companies can only do so much with console graphics and have no reason to add new textures/effects to a PC version). Im guessing that this will be the case unless a PC game is developed and then ported to consoles (yet there are very few PC companies able to do this anymore, i would say Valve & iD are the only ones since Crytek gave up on that).

 

On a side note I hope they continue to support the current generation of consoles for the next 10 years. Maybe then developers will realize what we want is content and not better looking games. Theres a reason im still playing all the classics from <2004, they are better games. With the exception of a select few, these days most games are mediocre and expect sales just because they licensed the ever updating Unreal 3 Engine.

Im also glad Crytek learned their lesson with Crysis (a game with little effort put into the gameplay) and hopefully they will concentrate on reaching a larger audience and putting more time into a story/gameplay. It should be noted that that game was highly pirated though and thats probably the main reason Crysis gave up on being PC exclusive...but developers are slowly getting the idea about what gamers want.

 

umm the Fifa 08 on the PC is a port of the PS2 version, not the 360 version, therfore its graphics are like the PS2 version and not like the way superior 360 version

 

The ps2 can play games from the future because it is magic. Sony has owned the rights to magic since they released the first discman in November of 1984.

 

Wow this thread is still allive.
Amazing what PS2 can do, huh

 

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. I heard someone with a PS2 posted on YouTube a video of him beating GTA XI in 5 min 12 sec, but Sony used magic to take it down.

 

They wont be releasing a new console anytime soon. Both Sony and MS have a console that are selling steadily, but not enough so they can make stupid mistakes. Both the 360 and PS3 are getting cheaper to produce, heck every 360 sold brings them profit, soon enough well have 65nm GPU, and then hybrid CP/GPU chip, further cutting costs. The important thing is that MS have sold a lot of consoles without major reductions, which is why the XBOX sold, only when it was dirt cheap. Heck MS are selling 360s at a faster rate than XBOX, and again, with no major price cuts.

Also, the current console hardware is very good, as somebody said, PC games look better, but thats just due to higher filtering and resolution, nothing that puts consoles to shame, so for that reason, the 360 and PS3 arent technologically held back just yet, and so far theyve lasted a lot longer than the XBOX did.

And lastly, its simply better for them to support the consoles with software, a good library can create a good brand name, coupled with falling costs hence a cheaper console, i think this gen will last a long time, 2012 to me seems like a good year for the next releases.

Oh and as for Fifa 08, thanks for clearing that up, youre right, it is a PS2 port, which in 07 wouldve been a good thing considering the XBOX version was the best then

 

Hopefully both stick with it long enough and shrink the damn things like they did with the PS2.

 

It's because PC devs are, let's face it, sloppy and lazy in comparison. Even taking into account the OS and whatnot, it's still pretty pathetic how much they hog the system resources. The problem is using libraries upon libraries that other people have made without understanding them. Now, I kind of support not creating stuff from scratch, because chances are your team won't be able to make the most efficient engine from scratch; but the problem is that the technologies that are out there aren't terribly efficient and are generally chosen on what looks hip and fancy rather than what works better(for instance Havok in Oblivion).

Don't forget that japanese companies set the standard for console development, and they know their stuff.

It's amazing what you can squeeze out of a PS2. It's a shame the Dreamcast didn't last, as it would have been interesting to see what the last gen titles were like on that.

 

Kittie, ALL devs are sloppy and lazy that way, trust me. The difference in resource utilization has more to do with ruthless optimization on consoles than it does with laziness on PCs. When you have to shove all your game on to a DVD in a way that it can actually run from the disk with only 512MB of RAM, you are much more willing to scrimp a texture detail here or there to make it fit. When you can just raise the system reqs from 800MB RAM/1GB HDD to 950MB RAM/1.2GB HDD, you have much less incentive to trim.

 

I think one day its going to be very possible for both consoles, heck MS have it in their roadmaps as it is. They need to show they are on the side of the hardcore gamers, because the way the Wii is going, gaming will be dead very soon