PS2 - One Year Later
Written: Oct 10 '01 (Updated Oct 10 '01)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: Still the only next gen console out, already large game library.
Cons: Game library generally bad, system bottlenecks show in games, expensive to developers.
The Bottom Line: Review covers it.
|
|
|
| LaughingTarget's Full Review: Sony PlayStation 2 Slimline Console |
Well, it’s about that one-year point for the PlayStation 2 and time for me to re-do my review on the system. A year ago I gave a somewhat poor rating for the PS2 with some predictions based on system architecture. Now, this year, I'll re-evaluate the system and bring back to light some of my previous impressions and how they stacked up today.
Still the only Next-Gen system available to U.S.
Unless you are a die-hard fan that got their GameCube via import or a game magazine company that got a pre-release final X-Box, then the PS2 is currently the only next-generation console available on the market. Being such, how does it compare to the now dirt cheap Dreamcast? Well, I consider the PlayStation 2 a competitor to the Dreamcast, and a previous generation console in comparison the XBox and GameCube. I have personally played the GameCube recently (import of course) and I can tell you that the PlayStation 2 does not hold a candle to the system. First gen games blow it out of the water. I'll be headed to the XBox Exposed industry trade show for game retailers on the 24th in Orlando and I can personally get my hands on the XBox (and maybe win one of the two given away that very day), and latest movies and impressions I have gotten from those who have gotten an advanced unit are showing that all the problems at the last E3 are all gone, especially the consistent poor framerate problems.
Now, back on track, the comparison to the Dreamcast. The biggest, and only major, advantage the PS2 has over the Dreamcast is that games are still being developed on it. Otherwise, the Dreamcast is a superior console. The DC has superior graphical ability in terms of full screen anti-aliening (I really meant anti-aliasing, but I'll leave this in for the comical effect) (meaning no jagged edges to you technologically illiterate) and a much stronger texture capabilities with 6 Megs of video RAM as compared to the 4 on the PS2. The system can only pump out 3 million polygons per second, and the PS2 supposedly can hit 75 (that is without any form of texturing or effects, colorless models mode) and I have yet to see anything that has pushed more than 5 (GameCube, from my impressions and others of games like Rogue Squadron 2 can push 12 with ease and XBox can probably hit 25-35 with all features on,).
So, of the consoles on the market now, N64, Dreamcast, and PS2, the Dreamcast would have been the better choice had new games been released for the next year or two instead of just dying at the end of the year.
Please, more depth about the system specs.
OK, here are the general system specs:
Processor: 297.3 MHz RISC processor
System RAM: 32 Megs, 4 for video
VU0 and VU1 vector unit processors
2X DVD playback
5 GB DVD media (silverbacks) or 650 Meg CD media (bluebacks)
Now, lets do some analyzing of them. First, the processor speed of 297.3 MHz (listed at 300 MHz on most public spec sheets) is not a flabby processor. Add in the two co-processors, the VU0 and VU1, and it can do some nice stuff. The GameCube processor clocks in at 485 MHz and XBox at 733 MHz, both much higher.
Now, the problem comes in with both the two VU units and the 4 Megs of video RAM. First, using the VU processors can give the programmer a lot of space to work with in terms of models, just look at the complexity of the models in Metal Gear Solid 2. But, getting them to work together is the hard part. Getting the graphics out of the system cost a lot of money, unless you use the main processor only, then the game will look like a Dreamcast game. Developers have been complaining about the insane difficulty getting the processors to work together, even from those who now know the system well. That translates into higher development costs for graphics, which eats away from areas that are deemed "less important" by developer standards, like gameplay and story.
The RAM is a bit more of a concern in the visual future of the system. The original PlayStation had only 4 Megs of RAM available for the graphics processor, and we all know how bad the texturing was. That same bad texturing is now brought over to the PS2. Even in top end titles like MGS2 and Devil May Cry, the texturing work is very blurry and lacks variety. Those games that do show variety in texturing are actually bogged down, like NHL Hitz. Also, the pitiful RAM allocation also shuts off a little feature called full screen anti-aliasing. With the exception of Gran Turismo 3, which uses super-models (there really is little going on, so all those polys can be allocated to the cars), modeling in the games tends to have a lot of jagged edges. Again, even in MGS2, the game has jaggies abound EVERYWHERE. Sure, some games like Silent Hill 2 found a way around it, blending the jagged effect together with the grain effect, but not all games work with a grain effect.
XBox has 64 Megs of integrated RAM that can be used anywhere, while the GameCube has 1 on board, plus another 16 it can use at discretion. That means the PS2 will have the ugliest texture work of the bunch, with even the N64 (with exception of distance, where it looks like the PS2 texture work) doing better.
The DVD player runs at a measly 2X playback for movies (note, I am not speaking about the 4X game read). This means, especially today when better DVD players are priced at $99, that the PS2 makes one poor DVD player. Mine, a now three-year-old system, runs DVDs faster and better. Also, a lot of older DVDs, especially pre-PS2 era Anime DVDs, won't even play. GameCube will have a 6X model available from Panasonic and the XBox has a 6X with $30 playback kit (PS2 needs a $35 memory card to play right, so that is $5 more than a DVD ready XBox). Also, since the DVD player is now pretty much a standard feature in homes, the DVD playback capability is no longer a selling point like it was a year ago, when a DVD player and a GameCube will go for less, and even a DVD ready XBox is cheaper, or just a DVD player for around $150 for a decent unit.
I'll get into the DVD media for games in the next section.
Enough about specs, what about game quality?
Well, thus far (opinions may vary since the PS2 happens to be some folk's only game console, or people who just like sports games), the game library is vastly garbage. There really have only been about, by my count, 4 good games. Red Faction (which I did trade in for the PC version which ironically runs better and prettier on my 300 MHz K6-2), Silent Hill 2 (though only for fans of the original), Madden 2002, which is good by any standard, but will be traded in for the XBox version with better graphics and more options, and Gran Turismo 3. The rest are either just average to the vast majority being trash.
The one major problem with the games on a whole are they are just so SHORT. I do understand the ones that are on the bluebacks, since they are mostly just graphics that take up a lot of space. But those on the DVD format, or silverbacks, being short is beyond me. With 5 gigabytes of space, how could the game be short? I've not spent more than 15 hours mastering a game, whereas my average library game is around 40 hours. I personally attribute this to development costs getting the producer's required graphical splendor, leaving little for content. That or just system inefficiencies that require all that space for the effects and visuals. Note the recent game ICO or Silent Hill 2 for length, one from each type of media.
Most of the games have little new story or new gameplay mechanics. Even Gran Turismo 3, one of the only decent mechanics in any game, already had it totally functioning in a previous title. Stories have been the worst dreck to be found this side of the supermarket checkout aisle. Note Okage and other such "RPGs", or even the storiless yet critically acclaimed Dark Cloud. Not even until MGS2 will there be a game that even remotely alludes to having a decent story.
Well, its still backward compatible...
True, it is, but there are minimal to no improvements to playing a PS1 game on the PS2. Now, if Sony were smart, they would hire the Bleem! folks to work out a system that makes the PS1 games stellar on the PS2 like they are doing with Bleemcast.
Is the PS2 a good buy?
Absolutely not. I said it in the past, and I am saying it now, the PS2 is over hyped and under performing. If you must have the PS2 for games like MGS2 or FFX, wait for the price to drop, which will be a long time, well after Sony realizes that the GameCube and XBox (maybe) are beating them silly in sales, one better and cheaper, the other miles better and the same price. There may be some of those sleeper hit titles that will show up, but overall, nothing has been catching the eye of this gamer who has been around the block a few million times and is thankfully waiting for the new ideas that some of the GCN and XBox games are coming out with.
Bottom Line
The PS2 is turning into a sport system. Over half their titles are sports or racing related. They may have the developer advantage, but they are jumping ship or cross programming now for the other two big boys. If you are a sports game fanatic, then the PlayStation 2 is right for you, for everyone else, wait for the price to drop or just wait for the XBox or GameCube, they are only a month away at this point and have a launch lineup that seems promising to be better than any of the last year of offerings from Sony.
Recommended:
No
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
LaughingTarget
|
 - Top 1000 |
|
Member: Justin Murray
Location: Orlando, FL
Reviews written: 125
Trusted by: 105 members
About Me:
If you haven't checked out Netjak yet, where have you been?
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.