I thought this was pretty interesting article and started wondering what a game would look like that took full advantage of all the PS2's processing ability. Has anyone seen or heard of a game that maxed out the PS2? The Misunderstood PS2 The ol’ PS2 is showing it’s age. Or is it? Just when everyone thought the PlayStation 2 was dated hardware, someone chimes in with some research that screws up the theory. Recently, Sony Europe conducted a study, and found that over 60% of all PlayStation 2 games aren’t utilizing the machine to its potential. Through the use of their performance analyzer, they found that most of these games are running at 30 frames per second, and sporting considerably less polygons onscreen that what the machine is capable of. Not surprisingly, most of these games are ports from other systems, or cross-platform developed titles that tend to make the games as similar as possible from one platform to the next by utilizing as many common features in each console as possible. Sony has maintained that the key to the performance of the PS2 has been the console’s twin vector units – microprocessors that run in parallel to the Emotion Engine that can help with all sorts of tasks, including enemy AI and physics. These vector units are capable of lightning-quick geometry processing, and can take quite a load off of the Emotion Engine (the main CPU) if used correctly. Unfortunately, many of today’s developers aren’t using those microprocessors, and Sony is hoping their study will open a few eyes, and help jumpstart greater PS2 development for the future. Our call? Don’t count on it. Fear Factor By now, you’ve probably noticed that while most PS2 games are less beautiful than it’s Xbox or GameCube counterparts, some games out there really look fantastic (Silent Hill 3 comes to mind), and at times, look even better than what is offered by the competition. Many who own a PS2 can’t figure this out, which is understandable. If one game looks amazing, why aren’t all of them so stunning? But the problems lie in not what the hardware is or isn’t, but what you do with it. While some developers are using those vector units that we talked about above, most tend not to even touch them, which result in a lot of untapped potential just waiting to be unleashed. If you own a PS2, this is quite a revelation, as the $50 you’re plunking down for a game could be so much more that what it is. Developers have gone on record saying that they are afraid of the PS2. More precisely, they are intimidated by how they must work with the thing (assuming that they want to utilize the vector units). See, those two microprocessors have very little in the way of onboard memory for code and data. As a result, developing on the PlayStation 2 is an extremely low-level chore; one that requires a vast knowledge of the PS2’s internal architecture. If you’re a dev who has a lot of background on PC’s for example, this level of commitment can be very frightening. In addition, it’s the sole reason PC-to-PS2 ports don’t fare well.So, the end result is that many developers – because of a lack of knowledge – don’t want to screw around with the PS2’s guts. And what you get are underachieving games that are far less than what they technically should be. Additional Drawbacks In addition to all the vector unit issues that we just observed, the PS2 is seriously lacking some video Ram (VRAM). Compared to the poly-pushing power of the PS2, the 4 Megabytes of embedded VRAM just isn’t enough. The Nintendo 64 had that much, and the Dreamcast had twice the amount! Due to this, developers have been wrestling with this hurdle ever since, being forced to thrash textures in and out of VRAM more than they would like. Again, Sony steps in and argues that the VRAM is never a problem at all, considering that the bus that connects the Graphics Synthesizer to the PS2’s 32 Megs of main memory is so quick (1.2 gigabytes per second). In other words, the bus is so speedy at streaming graphics data into the Graphics Synthesizer’s VRAM that it’s almost like the Graphics Synth is jacked into the main memory. There are some pretty big “pipes” that connect the PS2’s main components together, and that bandwidth translates into ultra-quick texture loads in to VRAM, so there is little to actually complain about. But it all comes back to those vector units. Because so few developers are utilizing them, they are left with the Emotion Engine doing most of the work, even though the twin co-processors could be taking on a lot of those tasks themselves. Lead by Example Without a doubt, the PS2 should be used more efficiently by developers. Anyone who owns a PS2 deserves to have their machine maxed out. And in these days of development, taking the easy route is often the best route (for them, at least), especially since the feature sets of the Xbox and GameCube are so easy to exploit. But the bigger culprit may be Sony. The company built a tricky, proprietary machine, and they knew it. The majority of the development community isn’t going to understand this new way of making games. And though Sony is disturbed by developers not taking full advantage of the hardware, the company isn’t doing much to solve the problem. When developing for Xbox, developers were in awe of how helpful Microsoft had been to them, wanting help in any way they could. Sony, on the other hand, weren’t so phenomenal. When developers got their PS2 dev kits, all of their documents were in Japanese (we’re not kidding). Microsoft would answer technical questions on a daily basis (sometimes within an hour). When working with Sony, dev’s found that many of their questions weren’t answered at all. Developers quickly learned that if you’re making a PS2 game, you’re on your own. Is it any wonder that dev’s are having trouble fully unlocking the PS2’s potential? Show and Tell If it wasn’t for the installed base that anticipated the PS2 so much, chances are, it would’ve went to the way of the Sega Saturn. If you remember, that machine was difficult to work with, and developers dropped it like a hot rock. First and second parties almost certainly have access to Sony’s performance analyzer, which tend to give those games an edge. Third parties may rent the analyzer, or the service, but it ain’t cheap. One would think that if you’re desperate enough to call forth developers and complain that your console is being under-utilized, the service or analyzer itself would be free of charge. If you’re going to develop a tricky, unorthodox machine, offer no help to the community who are making games that show off your system is capable of, and then complain when the machine is under-used, the blame is on you, not them. The fact is, if Sony wants developers to use the PS2’s features more efficiently, it’d be wise to show them how to do it, not simply tell them they should. http://www.gamingworldx.com/features/InsidetheXTheMisunderstoodPS2.shtml
Oh well, whether it is the developers or not, the bottom line is most of the games don't look as good. Not that that really matters anyway. I guess Sony hoped this twin vector chip thing would catch on and more developers would use it. They were wrong. Tough break. I'm happy with my Gamecube.
Ditto, but with XBOX for me. Gamecube just doesn't have the games. And Halo is the greatest video game of all time, period.
Developing an AAA title is an expensive proposition. It is rare to find programmers with the expertise to create an engine that will be flexible enough to exploit the capabilities of the hardware on multiple platforms. Many multiple platform titles are *not* worked on by the team which creates the original game. Given that and the fact that Sony went with the out there architecture as expressed in the end of the article, we end up with ports of games developed on other platforms with least common denominator features. The GameCube has similar problems. Sony needs to get a little less arrogant. The only problem is, if the PS/3 is going to be backward compatible, all the new developers will be screwed as before.
Not such a great thing to hear, but it was kind of expected. ....Well, I am looking forward to getting my copy of GT4.
What i'm wondering is if Sony will start pushing the developers hard to crank out games that push the system to its limits as it gets older to extend its lifespan. Also, there have to be some games out there already that do just this, but I would assume most of them are only available in Japan. Btw - I think I am the only person in the world who doesn't like Halo that much - just didn't do it for me...
I don't like the controls of that game. I played it once with a couple of guys, we played the multiplayer shooting mode. It wasn't so great to me. I have a number of games on my PC that I find better. I just can't play that kind of game on the XBOX controller, it just didn't feel right. Maybe I just need a mouse and keyboard...I don't know.
I'm with you...although I don't like any of the console first person shooters. The only FPS I have liked were on the PC. You just can't beat the control you get with a mouse and keyboard. Although, I did rather enjoy Metroid Prime...but that was a little different than most FPS.
Exactly how I feel. I need the keyboard and mouse. It makes the controls feel so much better. (BF1942, CS) Controls on the PC are best, I guess for the PS2 you can buy the keyboard and mouse assessories for the console. I think the Xbox also has something like that. I can't play those games on the controlers.
Mouse and keyboard is completely and utterly inferior in everyway to the Xbox controller. I tried CS and it's nearly unplayable because of the awkwardness of using a keyboard, not to mention how ridiculously poor the control of a mouse is. I like to have my fingers on, or no more than 1/2 inch away from all of the possible controls at all times. And I don't like having to crimp up my hand to use the idiotic WADS keyboard movement system. Halo is an amazing game that is made even more enjoyable because it is on a console and not on a machine that isn't made specifically to play games on.
The screen shots I've seen of GT4 look absolutely stunning. That may be the most graphically intense PS2 game to date.
You've got to be joiking. To me, using two joystics to play a first person shooter is not so fun (no matter what console). All FPS i own are on my PC. Except for a copy I got of MI, which I got just to try. Also, there are plenty of Computer Systems that are made for the sole purpose of playing games. Check out Alienware. Even Dell has a new system. Ofcourse you can still do a whole lot more on it because it is a computer. I don't want this to turn into a Computer vs Console D&D. I love my consoles. They rock for sports games. The controls for those kinds of games can not be played on a keyboard. But FPS are much better with the mouse and keyboard. The sensitivity with the mouse is amazing. (you might need to get a better mouse) Ok...now that I aparantly have shown myself to be a guy with no life...I will leave it there.
your joking right? The xbox controller blows. I guess it's preference... Real CS players know whats up...
That's funny. I feel the exact same way about the XBox. Aside from the Silent Hill series, there is absolutely nothing on XBox that appeals to me. As for the other issues... - Mouse + Keyboard is vastly superior to any controller configuration - Halo is overrated. UT is my fave FPS (aside from Prime)
PS2 is best... X box is best... Gameboy is best... Computers are best... This controller is best... Should have started this thread in the good ol' D & D.
Sorry to hijack your thread like that. I should have kept my mouth shut, I knew something like this was going to start. Glad to see I am not alone (that mouse + keyboard is the best for control),
