I have not played a Playstation console since the PS2 so I'm going with that one. There are a couple of games I've wanted to play on the PS3 and 4, but not enough to make me want to spend the money on the console and now I can't afford it anyway.
PS1 vs PS2 vs PS3 vs PS4
- Thread starter dscross
- Start date
To say the PS4 and Xbone were sold on a hotbed of lies is such an exaggeration. The 1st PS4 game I played was Watch Dogs and to get PS3 Uncharted-level graphics (probably even better than Uncharted) in an open world game is quite a leap forward. Do you not recall the gimped last-gen versions of Watch Dogs, Shadow of Mordor, and Dragon Age? We're going to get smaller (less noticeable) jumps forward in graphics because we're at the point of diminishing returns. The Order may have the most polygons per square inch or something like that but on other technical levels, I'm guessing it doesn't do much because there's very little dynamics going in such small and static levels. The biggest "jump" with regards to what these new systems can do is that consoles finally got some RAM; devs had to work with 256MB (MEGABYTES!!!) on the PS3. Also moving to an x86 architecture along with the RAM is probably the main reason PS4 has gotten so many PC games that consoles have never gotten in the past. The fact that I can play just about any PC game that would've been a PC-only game on PS4 is pretty awesome, not what Sony advertised but still quite awesome. PC gamers should be more disappointed in graphics than anyone because where's today's Crysis that pushes PC hardware and graphics? Pretty much all the PC exclusive games aren't close to the graphics you'd find in a PS4 exclusive game and PC gamers are just left with playing console games at higher resolutions and framerates while a PC without a video card could probably run most of PC's best exclusives (for example, I play Divinity Original Sin without a video card). Lastly, if you're complaining about gameplay not changing much, that's to blame on the developers as it's kinda hard to blame the hardware manufacturer for shitty software. And, again, some of the best gameplay of this gen hasn't required the forward push in graphics because gameplay isn't really dependent on graphics.Silentpony said:
Silentpony said:
That's really generalizing things though. We might as well say the console versions of Crysis were the same as the PC version.
What was the last game that really push boundaries or legitimized the need for newer hardware in your opinion, just curious?
None. Not a single console game I have or have seen has justified the new hardware. I have Bloodborne, Doom, DA: Inquisition, the Sexy Brutale, Borderlands Collection, TitanFall 2, Ghost Recon Wildlands, Horizon Zero Dawn, Little Nightmares and the Bioshock collection.hanselthecaretaker said:
Half of those are on the old gen consoles already, and the other half look exactly like the should be.
I can't tell the difference grpahics, FPS or gameplay wise between Shadow of Mordor and Horizon Zero dawn. Skyrim looks just as visually stunning and glistening as Doom ever did. Titanfall 2 can't hold a candle to Halo Reach, either in story, gameplay, AI path-finding(And halo is notoriously bad) or graphics. Wildlands is fun, but the graphics aren't any better than Just Cause 2.
Oh please. Remember all the mandatory gimmicks and addons that suddenly were no longer mandatory after launch? Remember all the gameplay trailers about how much the new consoles utilized the new hardware, only to find out those were the PC versions and the consoles were no better than the PS3 era.Phoenixmgs said:
Or what about the improved gameplay and new IPs? Only to have tired retreads, needless sequels and more remakes than JJ Abrams' studio! I mean Horizon Zero Dawn is arguably the most original IP out there, and its just any other Sand Box with the Dinobots scattered about.
What gimmicks and add-ons? The Xbone had the stupid Kinect and the TV stuff but everyone knew that stuff was dumb; it can do everything your Smart-TV already does!!! Although the HDMI-in can be pretty useful. Sony just advertised the PS4 as nothing but a system that plays games, it couldn't even play a MP3 on release in fact. What gameplay enhancing gimmicks and add-ons were advertised (outside the Kinect that was already a 360 add-on)? Nintendo is the one that pushes gameplay gimmicks to the detriment of gameplay.Silentpony said:
What games required the power of last-gen systems? Shooter controls did get massively better as good FPSs or TPSs were about once in a blue moon (probably ever rarer) on PS2/Xbox/GC but new hardware wasn't required for that. Then, all we got for PS3/360 were boring ass MMSs. Something like Bayonetta was obviously done on earlier hardware ala DMC. The better hardware of PS3/360 allowed for better open worlds, but is that really a good thing considering how awful most open world games are while ruining many good games that depend on good level design, which goes to shit in open worlds. PS3/360 was easily the worst gen in gaming with seeing games becoming so homogeneous (MMSs, cover TPSs, Arkham combat, open worlds) that many genres basically disappeared as every publisher was trying pull in literally every gamer with every game. PS4 easily has a better library than PS3 and it's not even close. Current-gen hardware has allowed much better open worlds with actual density instead of barren wastelands. The fidelity and density seen in Horizon's world is just not close to possible on PS3. Sure, the gameplay of Horizon could be done on PS3 but you can make that argument against PS3 games too. New IPs are always riskier, thus in lower numbers than sequels and that will always be the case.
Silentpony said:
It is simply foolish or short sighted to think that current gen games would look or play as good if they were all on last gen hardware. Any developer who read the above would not know what to make of it. For example there is even a significant difference between Dark Souls 1 on PS3 and Dark Souls 2: SotFS on PS4, and that was based on last gen hardware. The textures are unmistakably sharper, and they?re only up-res?d AFAIK.
All you have to do is look up some of Naughty Dog?s tech documents for UC4 and compare Nate?s PS4 character model to what it was on PS3. Hell even the collection had a significant visual upgrade.
And is that change worth $400 to you, 'cause it sure as shit isn't to me! That's they type of change worth about $60 for a single new title on the current system, not an entirely new system with little-to-no backwards compatibility plus the price of the game itself.hanselthecaretaker said:
And for this I'm assuming you got the game for free, and didn't actually spend $399.99 and $59.99 all plus tax for that
Silentpony said:And is that change worth $400 to you, 'cause it sure as shit isn't to me! That's they type of change worth about $60 for a single new title on the current system, not an entirely new system with little-to-no backwards compatibility plus the price of the game itself.hanselthecaretaker said:
And for this I'm assuming you got the game for free, and didn't actually spend $399.99 and $59.99 all plus tax for that
I don't even have that, and I only paid $250 for my PS4 with UC4 a year ago. Still worth it though, as I recently discovered I'd be paying nearly double that for just a graphics card these days - that launched at the same price originally - (thanks cryptomining!) just to play The Witcher 3 at higher settings than what's on PS4. That's not worth it either, even though I'd still rather wait it out because I'd rather play it on PC.
What would make it "worth it" to you, considering you still bought into the current gen regardless? What made 7th gen "worth it" over 6th gen while we're at it, considering it was mostly just a sub-HD upgrade? We still had 3D GTA's and other sandbox type games, etc.
Interesting...If we're talking graphical capabilities, the PS3 and PS4 are not far off in all honesty. Although as someone who spent the past 2 years collecting PS3 games and seeing most of what it has to offer, I can't say that it is better than my few months old PS4. Not even graphically. Sure, I have a ton of last gen games on both platforms and can see what you mean by it not being much a difference (Persona 5, Dishonored, The Last of Us) but I do not think that these rereleases never intended to satisfy someone looking for a significant graphical upgrade anyway. I think it is about preservation and accessibility. The 7th gen of consoles did not consider preservability since it relied on gimmicks, patches, and needless install data to make a game work properly. When it comes to the plug n' play aspect of playing old games, the PS4 comes close to achieving what the PS2/PS1 did. Now not only are there better versions of the same games but the exclusivity of a PS3 is kinda stripped down by the current PS4 library. Aside from Sly Cooper 4, Infamous 1&2, some Ratchet and Clanks, and obscure titles like Nier, I do not see a need for what is arguably the most mediocre of Playstations
Now niether of those 2 compete with the PS2 or PS1 imo, though the PS4 is getting there.
If I had to say which system was best for its time, I'd have to go with the PS1. The PS2 is definitely the better system by a long shot, but I think that the Gamecube and Xbox were also pretty good competition at the time. Now the PS1? That system was fucking awesome not only for being the cheaper option compared to Sega Saturn and N64, but for providing so much originality in each genre it excelled in. The N64 was better at providing those collect-a-thon 3D platformers but was no match for all of the other genres the PS1 had to offer. Shmups, RPGs, survival-horror, stealth, platformers, fighters - you name it, the PS1 had it. I'll agree that plenty of these games did not age well at all, but the ones that did have masterful pixel art and music. Plenty of companies left Nintendo to continue their series on PS1 also sooooo yeah the PS1 undeniably won for the best of its time.
Its all about the games people, not the graphics
Now niether of those 2 compete with the PS2 or PS1 imo, though the PS4 is getting there.
If I had to say which system was best for its time, I'd have to go with the PS1. The PS2 is definitely the better system by a long shot, but I think that the Gamecube and Xbox were also pretty good competition at the time. Now the PS1? That system was fucking awesome not only for being the cheaper option compared to Sega Saturn and N64, but for providing so much originality in each genre it excelled in. The N64 was better at providing those collect-a-thon 3D platformers but was no match for all of the other genres the PS1 had to offer. Shmups, RPGs, survival-horror, stealth, platformers, fighters - you name it, the PS1 had it. I'll agree that plenty of these games did not age well at all, but the ones that did have masterful pixel art and music. Plenty of companies left Nintendo to continue their series on PS1 also sooooo yeah the PS1 undeniably won for the best of its time.
Its all about the games people, not the graphics
The main point of new consoles of any gen is basically you can play all the new games for 5+ years. If you still had last-gen consoles, you couldn't play really any of the new games regardless if they could be done on that hardware. Even then some stuff does have to be rather gimped to work on PS3/360 as shown by the early games this gen that released on last-gen systems. Outside of the jump to 3D, there's not much gameplay evolution that occurs due to hardware itself as most gameplay innovations come from the indie scene. Games looking better is an aspect lots of people do care about. Most games, even today, could be done on PS2 hardware with the graphics turned down a lot but is that really acceptable to most gamers even if they aren't graphic whores. I remember when a hand having fingers was great graphics on PS2. I want better looking games than that even if the gameplay could be done on PS2.Silentpony said:And is that change worth $400 to you, 'cause it sure as shit isn't to me! That's they type of change worth about $60 for a single new title on the current system, not an entirely new system with little-to-no backwards compatibility plus the price of the game itself.hanselthecaretaker said:
And for this I'm assuming you got the game for free, and didn't actually spend $399.99 and $59.99 all plus tax for that
I know you just live in Nintendo Land, but that was just Sony mocking Microsoft about the online DRM bullshit they tried to pull.Yoshi178 said:apparently this deserves a thunderous applause.Phoenixmgs said:
First off I didn't buy my PS4, it was a gift. Second I didn't buy my Xbox 360, it was left by my roomate who didn't want it.hanselthecaretaker said:
And I'm not arguing that new gen consoles aren't for upgrades, they most certainly are, but they're for noticeable, actual upgrades.
Check it:
Compared to yours
Which do you think was the better deal?
Since you're wondering, the first. Also since you asked what I think would have been worth $460+ for next gen, how about full VR. Like a .Hack// game. And no, not a shitty RPG .Hack//, an actual fully realized virtual reality world, indistinguishable from the Holodeck or Matrix. What's that new movie, Player 1? Yeah, that. What they have in that movie, the fully realized virtual world with sight, sound, touch, smell, etc...
THAT is worth almost $500 a person and worth the change over. Putting dirt and dimming the lights on Nathan Drake? I wouldn't even pay $20 for that.
This thread is about Sony. not Nintendo.Phoenixmgs said:I know you just live in Nintendo Land, but that was just Sony mocking Microsoft about the online DRM bullshit they tried to pull.Yoshi178 said:apparently this deserves a thunderous applause.Phoenixmgs said:
and regardless, it's still a pretty stupid thing to be applauded for when being able to play used games is one of the most basic things you can do with a video game system.
Even if Sony were just mocking Microsoft, the fact that a giant corporation like Sony feels that in order to gain sales, they need to mock their competitors on one of the biggest stages in the industry, is pretty childish of them.
You originally stated you didn't seen any difference in 7th gen>8th gen graphics, and I pointed out the most basic remaster example of how that is false. The differences are only more prominent on actual 8th gen titles.Silentpony said:First off I didn't buy my PS4, it was a gift. Second I didn't buy my Xbox 360, it was left by my roomate who didn't want it.hanselthecaretaker said:
And I'm not arguing that new gen consoles aren't for upgrades, they most certainly are, but they're for noticeable, actual upgrades.
Check it:
That change up? $200 on launch, Mario 64 is free.
Compared to yours
That change up was $460+
Which do you think was the better deal?
Since you're wondering, the first. Also since you asked what I think would have been worth $460+ for next gen, how about full VR. Like a .Hack// game. And no, not a shitty RPG .Hack//, an actual fully realized virtual reality world, indistinguishable from the Holodeck or Matrix. What's that new movie, Player 1? Yeah, that. What they have in that movie, the fully realized virtual world with sight, sound, touch, smell, etc...
THAT is worth almost $500 a person and worth the change over. Putting dirt and dimming the lights on Nathan Drake? I wouldn't even pay $20 for that.
Mario 64 wasn't free for me at the time, either. I only was able to find an N64 console through Sears @ $250 and then it was weeks later that I finally got Mario 64 separately for $70. I also paid less for a PS4 bundled with UC4 over 20 years later and yeah, driving around a highly detailed Africa in a highly detailed jeep was worth it over the on-rails linear auto-driving chase sequences from the PS3 games. Having real time cutscenes with in-game character models more detailed than what they had to pre-render on PS3 is worth it. Not having to wait for games to update before you can start playing, having a sleep mode to pick up right where you left off on resume, being able to take .PNG screenshots, record gameplay, using the OS without having to close a game, all worth it.
"Indistinguishable from the Matrix" level VR is also a hell of a lot bigger jump than 2D Mario to 3D Mario. Sure I'd like it too, but let's be realistic; they're still messing around with goggles and wands, so an affordable memory foam VR bed complete with sensory hookups isn't really in the near future.
Again, at what other console gen was there an equivalent leap in gameplay from 2D to 3D? An open world game at a greater graphical fidelity than Uncharted on PS3 is quite a leap forward in graphics. Is Super Mario Odyssey anymore than a better looking and bigger Super Mario 64?Silentpony said:And I'm not arguing that new gen consoles aren't for upgrades, they most certainly are, but they're for noticeable, actual upgrades.
Check it:
That change up? $200 on launch, Mario 64 is free.
Since you're wondering, the first. Also since you asked what I think would have been worth $460+ for next gen, how about full VR. Like a .Hack// game. And no, not a shitty RPG .Hack//, an actual fully realized virtual reality world, indistinguishable from the Holodeck or Matrix. What's that new movie, Player 1? Yeah, that. What they have in that movie, the fully realized virtual world with sight, sound, touch, smell, etc...
THAT is worth almost $500 a person and worth the change over. Putting dirt and dimming the lights on Nathan Drake? I wouldn't even pay $20 for that.
VR isn't ready at all to be the standard interface for gaming as seen by current VR. Building a console exclusively around a totally new interface technology is a horrible idea as you won't get dev support and your system will miss out on all just about all the games that use the standard interface method (as seen by the Wii). Even if this generation was fully VR in a perfect world, what would then make the next-gen worth it, hook into the game like the Matrix?
Did you not remember why Sony was able to say the PS4 supports used games? Everyone cheering was doing it in a mocking manner due to Microsoft's disaster that was the Xbox One before they finally reneged on their DRM. Microsoft deserved the mocking as don't you remember their insulting marketing campaign that insulted customers. It's really Microsoft's fault for being so goddamn stupid and arrogant that a competitor can advertise basic features in a mocking manner.Yoshi178 said:
I don't care if the public was mocking Xbox. of course that was going to happen if the public felt Xbox was being stupid.Phoenixmgs said:Did you not remember why Sony was able to say the PS4 supports used games? Everyone cheering was doing it in a mocking manner due to Microsoft's disaster that was the Xbox One before they finally reneged on their DRM. Microsoft deserved the mocking as don't you remember their insulting marketing campaign that insulted customers. It's really Microsoft's fault for being so goddamn stupid and arrogant that a competitor can advertise basic features in a mocking manner.
The fact that a giant Corporation like Sony felt they needed to stoop down to the general public's level and also mock their competitor was still pretty damn childish of the the company to do whether Microsoft deserved it or not.
They capitalised on the situation. In a far less harmful way than corporations can and often do. It's not 'stooping' to anything, it's being an informed entity that recognises anti-consumer business moves when they see them. Microsoft are greedy and arrogant and I am glad to have finally rid myself of them at long last. What's childish is defending them as if there's something to lose by not doing so.Yoshi178 said:I don't care if the public was mocking Xbox. of course that was going to happen if the public felt Xbox was being stupid.Phoenixmgs said:Did you not remember why Sony was able to say the PS4 supports used games? Everyone cheering was doing it in a mocking manner due to Microsoft's disaster that was the Xbox One before they finally reneged on their DRM. Microsoft deserved the mocking as don't you remember their insulting marketing campaign that insulted customers. It's really Microsoft's fault for being so goddamn stupid and arrogant that a competitor can advertise basic features in a mocking manner.
The fact that a giant Corporation like Sony felt they needed to stoop down to the general public's level and also mock their competitor was still pretty damn childish of the the company to do whether Microsoft deserved it or not.
Do you have a paypal account ? in the event if you do you can make an additional 300 a week in your revenue working from home for 3 hours every day... go to
........... ► http://www.Help80.Com
........... ► http://www.Help80.Com
yeah they capitalised on the situation, by directly taking a cheap shot at their competitor.Xsjadoblayde said:
Sony was literally acting exactly like Nintendo, Sega and Sony did like 20 years beforehand back in the 90's.
sure it was funny, but it was still childish of the companies to do it back then, and it's childish for companies to do it now.
PS2
For starters, everyone I know who bought one still has a working PS2.
It's backward compatibility means it took everything from the PS1 as it's own, and added in the immense library of games produced for it.
The graphical capabilities allowed a big leap from the games of the previous generation, whereas I feel (and I know this is just a personal opinion) that later generations had a tendency to just refine the advance that was made from PS1 to PS2.
In all honesty, it stands out to me as the best console "of it's time" against any other console, not just the playstations.
For starters, everyone I know who bought one still has a working PS2.
It's backward compatibility means it took everything from the PS1 as it's own, and added in the immense library of games produced for it.
The graphical capabilities allowed a big leap from the games of the previous generation, whereas I feel (and I know this is just a personal opinion) that later generations had a tendency to just refine the advance that was made from PS1 to PS2.
In all honesty, it stands out to me as the best console "of it's time" against any other console, not just the playstations.