Just out of curiosity.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I think all these responses will all be opinionated. That being said in my opinion i was more impressed with the jump to the ps2 then with the jump to the ps3. I remember putting in a ps2 game for the first time and being like WOW!!! and with the ps3 i was like hmmm this looks good. So ya i was more impressed with the ps2
i was blown away when i first played my xbox360 on my hd rather than the first xbox. i was really young when the first ps1 came out so i cant really remember
PS1 to PS2 was staggeringDuckman5
true... I mean, I am very impressed by games like Soul Calibur IV and Unchartered... but yeah, going from PS1 to stuff like Tekken 5 was just unreal... I think it has to do with the fact that once you get in HD it takes up a ton of CPU/GPU power to render such high-res stuff...?
They're totally different jumps.
PS1 to PS2 was from blurry to realstic and PS2 to PS3 was a less radical jump from "SD" to "HD".
I'd still say PS1 to PS2.
Well. we're not even sure of the limits of this generation. FFXII came out years after the launch of the PS2, after Square relatively had a grasp on the hardware after FFX, X-2, and XI. We can judge by the end of this generation though.hazelnutmanHopefully games like Heavy Rain or FF Versus will push those limits
ps2-ps3 biggest leap. i cant tell the difference between ps1 and ps2 graphics. the ps2 graphics were sooo bad i was never really able to play it. sooo many jagged polygons, yet not enough, heh. i played gta, and tekken, other than that i skipped ps2.ratm247Hope you enjoyed missing out.
ps2-ps3 biggest leap. i cant tell the difference between ps1 and ps2 graphics. the ps2 graphics were sooo bad i was never really able to play it. sooo many jagged polygons, yet not enough, heh. i played gta, and tekken, other than that i skipped ps2.ratm247You can't tell the difference between PS1 and PS2 graphics? lol wow.
[QUOTE="-Hoax-"]PS1 to PS2 just look at FF7 and FF12Benjiman_GuileI concur. true mgs1 vs 3 vs 4 google it!
ps2-ps3 biggest leap. i cant tell the difference between ps1 and ps2 graphics. the ps2 graphics were sooo bad i was never really able to play it. sooo many jagged polygons, yet not enough, heh. i played gta, and tekken, other than that i skipped ps2.ratm247
Are you serious? That sucks man... PS2 was/is amazing...
Heres a few I found - keep in mind SC IV is in HD...
Soul Blade - PlayStation
Soul Calibur III - PlayStation 2
Soul Calibut IV - PlayStation 3
All games below are games released near or around the beginning few years of their respective console's lifetime.
Crash Bandicoot - PS1:
Jak & Daxter: The Precursor Legacy - PS2:
Uncharted: Drake's Fortune - PS3:
ps1 to xbox
I would say ps2 but i havent seen a ps2 game in a while and judging from the pic of jak and daxter they dont look so good. I dont have any of the earleir ps2 games so ps2 to sp3 may have been better
I remember getting blown away by Jak and Daxter ( I don't remember my reaction when I 1st played PS2). But J&D completely blown me away. The colours were so vibrant, the game world felt alive for the 1st time.
When I played PS3 for the 1st time I was...lets just said I had to pick my brains from the yard. The level of details impressed me.
Both jumps were equally impressive IMO, but they were 2 different jumps. PS1 to PS2 we had a overall quality jump. We had better scenarios, things started to to appear real etc etc.
PS2 to PS3 jump was the "Detail" Jump. We had a world with good graphics overall (better than PS2 yes) BUT! what impressed the most was the details. Leafs floating in the air, dust particles from explosions, environment sounds are immersive, Dynamic lightning etc etc.
So we can said that Jump A was better than Jump B.
Good question.
PS1 - PS2
I will now post specs.
PS1
Central processing unit
An early PlayStation motherboard.
MIPS R3000A-compatible (R3051) 32bit RISC chip running at 33.8688 MHz
The chip is manufactured by LSI Logic Corp. with technology licensed from SGI. The chip also contains the Geometry Transformation Engine and the Data Decompression Engine.
Features:
Geometry transformation engine
This engine is inside the main CPU chip. It gives it additional vector math instructions used for the 3D graphics.
Features:
Sony originally gave the polygon count as:
These figures were given as a ballpark figure for performance under optimal circumstances, and so are unrealistic under normal usage.
Data decompression engine
This engine is also inside the main CPU. It is responsible for decompressing images and video. Documented device mode is to read three RLE-encoded 16×16 macroblocks, run IDCT and assemble a single 16×16 RGB macroblock. Output data may be transferred directly to GPU via DMA. It is possible to overwrite IDCT matrix and some additional parameters, however MDEC internal instruction set was never documented.
Features:
Graphics processing unit
This chip is separate to the CPU and handles all the 2D graphics processing, which includes the transformed 3D polygons.
Features:
Sound processing unit
Features:
Memory
CD-ROM drive
Features:
PS2
The specifications of the PlayStation 2 console are as follows, with hardware revisions:
Scianix
good deal, but thatsa pretty low quality pic of jak and dazter- I remember that game looking much better...
Unchartered = :-0 wow!
Scoob64
Gamespot screenshots suck hard, lol.
Very vaild point about the Jump B leaves and explosions. But IMO the biggest leap was PS1 to PS2 because the PS2 did things we could never have dreamed of and stuff we have never seen before-Hoax-
Exactly.
The PS2 raised questions and opened doors that only the PS3 could go through.
The PS1 to PS2 jump was the bgigest because of this. During the PS2 age, it was just a bunch of "Hey, I wonder what kind of lighting we could get?" while the question during that PS1 age was "How can we make this look better?"
Instead of focusing on one or a couple area of graphics during the PS1 age, most developers were focusing on improving graphics as a whole.
So basically: The PS1 to PS2 jump was entirely structural while the PS2 to PS3 was only cosmetic.
- PSone was a "first" attempt for Sony in delivering 3D games.
PS1 had a lot of graphical flaws which could be improved on. Blocky textures as an examply. Another texure glitch I don´t know how to descibe.
- With the PS2 Sony showed how games should be done in 3D. Not only sharper textures and more polygons. The PS2 could do a lot more graphically.
PS2 fixed a lot of the PSone faults and added more memory for sharper textures and more polygons. But PS2 could also display, more realistic light-effects, water-effects, particle-effects, procedural-geometry, post-processing effects etc. I think Sony asked themself: "what can we do in 3D games besides more polygons and sharper textures".
So the jump from PS1 to PS2 was a revolutionary step.
- PS3 gives the developers a lot more power to do the things they couldn't do on the PS2 on a big scale. The only new thing the PS3 adds are shaders, which the PS2 didn´t have. Everything else is just more. So I think Sony thoughts were: OK, now we know what is possible. How can we add more ...?"
From PS2 to PS3 was more of an evolutionary step.
For me the PS2 is actually about making 3D games better. And the PS3 is about the visuals being better, more, bigger, richer and more functions besides games. A lot of things the PS3 can do in a game, the PS2 can also do. But on a lot smaller scale. Sony even advertised it that way: with the emotion engine (PS2) creating a single rain-drop and the Cell (PS3) creating a thunderstorm.
So the jump to PS2 was much bigger. But a lot of people were expecting near-prerendered stuff in those pre-PS2 days. Even this PS3-gen people are expecting pixar visuals. I think with each generation the jump in grapics will be even less obvious.
PS1 to PS2.look at MGS1 compared to MGS3.or look at Gran Turismo 1/2 compared to Gran Turismo 3/4
chohighlb50
I'm really eager to see a final build of GT5 and see if its improved any over Prologue... definitely one of my most anticipated games. Can't wait to see what they can crank out with GT6!!! (Gonna be craaaazeeee)
That sums up the general opinion most superbly. Kudos- PSone was a "first" attempt for Sony in delivering 3D games.
PS1 had a lot of graphical flaws which could be improved on. Blocky textures as an examply. Another texure glitch I don´t know how to descibe.- With the PS2 Sony showed how games should be done in 3D. Not only sharper textures and more polygons. The PS2 could do a lot more graphically.
PS2 fixed a lot of the PSone faults and added more memory for sharper textures and more polygons. But PS2 could also display, more realistic light-effects, water-effects, particle-effects, procedural-geometry, post-processing effects etc. I think Sony asked themself: "what can we do in 3D games besides more polygons and sharper textures".
So the jump from PS1 to PS2 was a revolutionary step.- PS3 gives the developers a lot more power to do the things they couldn't do on the PS2 on a big scale. The only new thing the PS3 adds are shaders, which the PS2 didn´t have. Everything else is just more. So I think Sony thoughts were: OK, now we know what is possible. How can we add more ...?"
From PS2 to PS3 was more of an evolutionary step.For me the PS2 is actually about making 3D games better. And the PS3 is about the visuals being better, more, bigger, richer and more functions besides games. A lot of things the PS3 can do in a game, the PS2 can also do. But on a lot smaller scale. Sony even advertised it that way: with the emotion engine (PS2) creating a single rain-drop and the Cell (PS3) creating a thunderstorm.
So the jump to PS2 was much bigger. But a lot of people were expecting near-prerendered stuff in those pre-PS2 days. Even this PS3-gen people are expecting pixar visuals. I think with each generation the jump in grapics will be even less obvious.
Bunnyslippers
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment