Why is the PS2 so praised?

So not only can you not even bring up a library that compares to the PS2, but your argument is "forget what everyone else thinks, MY opinion here is what matters"?

Well it looks like SW standards have just dropped a bit, which is quite a feat in itself.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Did it really wipe-away the competition and all the other consoles in game quality and variation? nameless12345

Yes, absolutely.

But how do you measure game quality? By looking at critic scores and reading other's opinions or... ?

That is how we do things in SW. It's not perfect, but multiple critic scores seem to suggest that the PS2 was a titan. Of course, I think the games speak for themselves.

But if you're going to play the "I didn't really like Ico" or "I don't think MGS is very good" game, then we're all wasting our time in this thread.

[QUOTE="JohnF111"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

But how do you measure game quality? By looking at critic scores and reading other's opinions or... ?

nameless12345

I don't know... maybe by playing the games and deciding for yourself?

As they say - a million people, a million tastes :)

So, in order to judge consoles, we have to play their entire libraries before we can determine their merit?

You seem to be under the impression that people are only capable of seeing the merit of consoles in terms of their own personal tastes.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="JohnF111"] You tell us, you brought it up.JohnF111

I don't know... maybe by playing the games and deciding for yourself?

As they say - a million people, a million tastes :)

I never denied that the system hasn't got a vast library of quality games and I understand why it's popular. I'm simply questioning why some people think it's so unarguably superior to the other systems.

Most of the responses I got so far are "because it just is" or "because it was better than anything else" which, atleast in my view, are not that strong arguments.

It also makes me wonder how many who praise the PS2 actually played the best games the other consoles had.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="JohnF111"] You tell us, you brought it up.hakanakumono

I don't know... maybe by playing the games and deciding for yourself?

As they say - a million people, a million tastes :)

So, in order to judge consoles, we have to play their entire libraries before we can determine their merit?

You seem to be under the impression that people are only capable of seeing the merit of consoles in terms of their own personal tastes.

Your tastes shouldn't even factor into the equation of what console was better. Your tastes are irrelevant.

Because it had great graphics for its time, huge game library and 3rd and 1st party support and the price was right, and may include.... its literally reliable. Its the perfect console....

[QUOTE="JohnF111"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

I don't know... maybe by playing the games and deciding for yourself?

As they say - a million people, a million tastes :)

nameless12345

I never denied that the system hasn't got a vast library of quality games and I understand why it's popular. I'm simply questioning why some people think it's so unarguably superior to the other systems.

Most of the responses I got so far are "because it just is" or "because it was better than anything else" which, atleast in my view, are not that strong arguments.

It also makes me wonder how many who praise the PS2 actually played the best games the other consoles had.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

I don't know... maybe by playing the games and deciding for yourself?

As they say - a million people, a million tastes :)

JohnF111

So, in order to judge consoles, we have to play their entire libraries before we can determine their merit?

You seem to be under the impression that people are only capable of seeing the merit of consoles in terms of their own personal tastes.

I think I understand what he's arguing now. He's opposed to the idea that the PS2 is "unquestionably" superior to other consoles, because he thinks that personal preferences should decide which console was "better." He's making the assumption that fans of the PS2 were simply unfamiliar with what was out there and label the PS2 as superior because it fit their "tastes."

Yet again some sensless stereotyping. You can't say someone MUST like the mentioned games. It's my taste after all, not yours.nameless12345

Your tastes shouldn't even factor into the equation of what console was better. Your tastes are irrelevant.

hakanakumono

But how do you determine then that "game X" is better than "game Y" if not by taste?

After all, even game critics are just humans who have their own tastes.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Your tastes shouldn't even factor into the equation of what console was better. Your tastes are irrelevant.

nameless12345

But how do you determine then that "game X" is better than "game Y" if not by taste?

After all, even game critics are just humans who have their own tastes.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Your tastes shouldn't even factor into the equation of what console was better. Your tastes are irrelevant.

nameless12345

But how do you determine then that "game X" is better than "game Y" if not by taste?

After all, even game critics are just humans who have their own tastes.

You should be able to separate your personal tastes from your ability to determine quality.

Reviews shouldn't be scored based on "how much the game is suited to x reviewer's tastes"

[QUOTE="JohnF111"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

So, in order to judge consoles, we have to play their entire libraries before we can determine their merit?

You seem to be under the impression that people are only capable of seeing the merit of consoles in terms of their own personal tastes.

hakanakumono

I think I understand what he's arguing now. He's opposed to the idea that the PS2 is "unquestionably" superior to other consoles, because he thinks that personal preferences should decide which console was "better." He's making the assumption that fans of the PS2 were simply unfamiliar with what was out there and label the PS2 as superior because it fit their "tastes."

Something in those lines, yes.

Because it had some top quality titles.

Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3

GOW 1 and 2

Ratchet and Clank 1,2 and 3

Jak 1,2 and 3

Devil May Cry

Kingdom Hearts 1 and 2

GTA3,Vice and San Andreas

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="JohnF111"] Yeah pretty much, and he's basically asking us to disprove his own opinions. A pointless task.nameless12345

I think I understand what he's arguing now. He's opposed to the idea that the PS2 is "unquestionably" superior to other consoles, because he thinks that personal preferences should decide which console was "better." He's making the assumption that fans of the PS2 were simply unfamiliar with what was out there and label the PS2 as superior because it fit their "tastes."

Something in those lines, yes.

Well, you're wrong. :? Sorry?

Own a GC btw.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Your tastes shouldn't even factor into the equation of what console was better. Your tastes are irrelevant.

hakanakumono

But how do you determine then that "game X" is better than "game Y" if not by taste?

After all, even game critics are just humans who have their own tastes.

You should be able to separate your personal tastes from your ability to determine quality.

Reviews shouldn't be scored based on "how much the game is suited to x reviewer's tastes"

I've seen some reviewers who throw out "objectivity" in favour of personal taste and preferences though. AVGN or Yahtzee are two of them. And interestingly they are both very popular.

Every time a thead about the "best consoles of all time" is opened it's always the PS2 that gets much praise.

But why is this so? Was it really so far ahead of it's time? Did it really wipe-away the competition and all the other consoles in game quality and variation? Did it bring unprecedented technical improvement?

As far as I remember, the console was nothing to rave about when it came out. It had jaggy and flickering graphics, poor game line-up and was expensive.

Things changed with time and I admit the console has seen some great games, but at the same time I still don't quite get it why it was so unquestionably superior to the other consoles.

I mean a lot of it's games are just PS1 games in better graphics and the competition offered some damn good games too.

Thoughts?

nameless12345

Very good question..

The PS2 had a vast assortment of great titles in all genres which lead to it's atronomical sales... The graphics weren't "mindbening" but they got the job done AND there were a few gems.. ie RE4, GOW, GT3, MGS 2& 3, ZOE ect.. Games that NO other system at the time offered. THATS why most gamers (at least in here) consider it to be the cream of the crop when it comes to home consoles.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="JohnF111"] Yeah pretty much, and he's basically asking us to disprove his own opinions. A pointless task.nameless12345

I think I understand what he's arguing now. He's opposed to the idea that the PS2 is "unquestionably" superior to other consoles, because he thinks that personal preferences should decide which console was "better." He's making the assumption that fans of the PS2 were simply unfamiliar with what was out there and label the PS2 as superior because it fit their "tastes."

Something in those lines, yes.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

But how do you determine then that "game X" is better than "game Y" if not by taste?

After all, even game critics are just humans who have their own tastes.

nameless12345

You should be able to separate your personal tastes from your ability to determine quality.

Reviews shouldn't be scored based on "how much the game is suited to x reviewer's tastes"

I've seen some reviewers who throw out "objectivity" in favour of personal taste and preferences though. AVGN or Yahtzee are two of them. And interestingly they are both very popular.

That's what you would call a "bad review."

Yahtzee isn't out to give quality reviews, he's out to entertain and provide games with a ridiculous amount of criticism.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

I think I understand what he's arguing now. He's opposed to the idea that the PS2 is "unquestionably" superior to other consoles, because he thinks that personal preferences should decide which console was "better." He's making the assumption that fans of the PS2 were simply unfamiliar with what was out there and label the PS2 as superior because it fit their "tastes."

JohnF111

Something in those lines, yes.

This isn't a matter of tea or coffee, this is like comparing a giant supermarket full of beverages to a gas station that has a small selection of refrigerated beverages and asking "how do you know you cant get more out of the gas station?"

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Every time a thead about the "best consoles of all time" is opened it's always the PS2 that gets much praise.

But why is this so? Was it really so far ahead of it's time? Did it really wipe-away the competition and all the other consoles in game quality and variation? Did it bring unprecedented technical improvement?

As far as I remember, the console was nothing to rave about when it came out. It had jaggy and flickering graphics, poor game line-up and was expensive.

Things changed with time and I admit the console has seen some great games, but at the same time I still don't quite get it why it was so unquestionably superior to the other consoles.

I mean a lot of it's games are just PS1 games in better graphics and the competition offered some damn good games too.

Thoughts?

OhSnapitz

Very good question..

The PS2 had a vast assortment of great titles in all genres which lead to it's atronomical sales... The graphics weren't "mindbening" but they got the job done AND there were a few gems.. ie RE4, GOW, GT3, MGS 2& 3, ZOE ect.. Games that NO other system at the time offered. THATS why most gamers (at least in here) consider it to be the cream of the crop when it comes to home consoles.

RE4 was originally on GC ...

Because it's brilliant.

[QUOTE="OhSnapitz"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Every time a thead about the "best consoles of all time" is opened it's always the PS2 that gets much praise.

But why is this so? Was it really so far ahead of it's time? Did it really wipe-away the competition and all the other consoles in game quality and variation? Did it bring unprecedented technical improvement?

As far as I remember, the console was nothing to rave about when it came out. It had jaggy and flickering graphics, poor game line-up and was expensive.

Things changed with time and I admit the console has seen some great games, but at the same time I still don't quite get it why it was so unquestionably superior to the other consoles.

I mean a lot of it's games are just PS1 games in better graphics and the competition offered some damn good games too.

Thoughts?

hakanakumono

Very good question..

The PS2 had a vast assortment of great titles in all genres which lead to it's atronomical sales... The graphics weren't "mindbening" but they got the job done AND there were a few gems.. ie RE4, GOW, GT3, MGS 2& 3, ZOE ect.. Games that NO other system at the time offered. THATS why most gamers (at least in here) consider it to be the cream of the crop when it comes to home consoles.

RE4 was originally on GC ...

Every time a thead about the "best consoles of all time" is opened it's always the PS2 that gets much praise.

But why is this so? Was it really so far ahead of it's time? Did it really wipe-away the competition and all the other consoles in game quality and variation? Did it bring unprecedented technical improvement?

As far as I remember, the console was nothing to rave about when it came out. It had jaggy and flickering graphics, poor game line-up and was expensive.

Things changed with time and I admit the console has seen some great games, but at the same time I still don't quite get it why it was so unquestionably superior to the other consoles.

I mean a lot of it's games are just PS1 games in better graphics and the competition offered some damn good games too.

Thoughts?

nameless12345

Because it had the best game library ever and hardware that kept up surprisingly well for being the weakest of the bunch.

Because it has more than 3000 games,and because SONY is power hungry....

if you don't understand why the ps2 is considered one of the greatest consoles of all time, you shouldn't consider yourself a gamer, and may god have mercy on your soul.

While it's game library was indeed huge, I also think some people were more satisfied with Xbox or GameCube.nameless12345

I don' t really think you can be convinced here.

The PS2 had a huge library that appealed to a lot of people, that's the main reason why so many people call it the "greatest" console. That's basically a fact (you can quibble with how I phrased it).

The very term "greatest" is inherently subjective. What makes something "great" is in entirely in the eye of the beholder. The fact that lots of people say that there are lots of games they like on the PS2 really doesn't prove anything. What you think makes a console "great' is different. Meat_Wad_Fan only likes FPS games, and for that reason he didn't like the PS2. This generation he probably likes the XBOX 360.

Because it had so many great games...

I see why it gets praised even though I preferred the GCN over the PS2 I can admit the PS2 had great games.