Sony Playstation 2 vs Sony Playstation


D.W.

  

18 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Sony Playstation 2

ps2-photo.jpg

Initial release date: March 4th, 2000

Initial price: $299

Lifespan: 2000 - present

Units sold: 142.8 million

Number of games released: Over 4500.

Notable games:

Grand Theft Auto series

Metal Gear Solid series

Gran Turismo series

God of War series

Devil May Cry series

Okami

Ico

Shadow of the Colossus

Final Fantasy X

Other notes:

- Best selling video game console of all time.

- The first video game console to use DVD technology.

- Backward compatable with 95% of PSX software.

VS

Sony Playstation

playstation.jpeg

Initial release date: December 3,1994

Initial price: $299

Lifespan: 1995-2006

Units sold: 102.49 million

Number of games released: 7,978

Notable games:

Castlevania: Symphony of the Night

Final Fantasy VII, VIII, and IX

Metal Gear Solid

Gran Turismo

Wipeout XL

Resident Evil series

Chrono Cross

Xenogears

Tomb Raider series

Crash Bandicoot series

Other notes:

- First game console to ship 100 million units.

- First dual analog controller.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PS2. I would have considered it a close call if the PS2 wasn't backwards compatible with the original Playstation. The fact that I can play all these awesome Playstation game on the PS2 is a testament to awesome. That and the improved graphics and the fact that it's still kicking all these years later is why I'm voting PS2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sales - PS2, obviously.

Longevity - Tie. Both over the decade mark, and when the PS2 is finally done for, it'll probably only have six months to a year longer than the PSX did.

Impact - The PSX.

It wasn't the first of its generation, but felt like the true beginning of a new era. It was the paradigm shift. It made games cool again. It made RPGs a viable mainstream genre in America. It made Nintendo fight for second place for once.

The PS2 was a tidal wave, but in terms of innovation or influence, there wasn't much there. It thrived on a brand name that the PSX had established before it. It instituted backwards compatibility, but the reason that was such a huge deal is because consumers still wanted to play all of their awesome PSX games.

Games - This is really really tough because one could really argue PSX as the RPG system; Final Fantasy, Chrono Cross, Suikoden, Persona, Dragon Quest, Xenogears, Lunar. Every single important console RPG series was represented. That's not even getting into other genres, or the genres that the system helped create and cultivate, such as survival horror or third person adventure. It also planted the seeds for gaming as an artform with games like Oddworld and Heart of Darkness. There's a reason I collect PSX games. It's absolutely one of the richest and deepest selections in gaming.

Which isn't to say that the PS2 isn't really strong in its own right. While I don't think it had nearly the domination in certain genres, the important thing of note is that the PS2 had software that set the stage for games as art. If PSX planted the seeds, the PS2 let them grow. Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, Rez, Katamari Damacy; these are games that we would have never thought possible until developers were given the chance and the technology.

I'd also put that as a tie.

It was super close, but I voted the PSX. Its importance was the clincher for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For people voting PS2 because it plays both sets of games, let the record show that the PS3 plays PS2 games, but it still got crushed by the PS2.

But you have the details there, PS2 cost £300 on debut, but the PS3 cost around $400-500 in it's debut.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't recall saying anything about the price in that post. Nor was I arguing that the PS3 deserved to win.

But brushing aside the PSX just because the PS2 can play its games is a weak argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For people voting PS2 because it plays both sets of games, let the record show that the PS3 plays PS2 games, but it still got crushed by the PS2.

The reason I voted for the PS2 over the PS3 was also because you had to buy a specific model of the system for backwards compatibility and it's been taken out since then. This was in addition to the starting cost and that the PS3 has barely released any games that I found very impressive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, both were massively popular, but the PS2 wins that. In addition it was the most successful console ever, the first to include a DVD player that was the first step in making these things more than gaming machines. Playstation was hugely influential and very successful, but I think the PS2 is the face of consoles from the last decade. The backwards compatibility is just a bonus.

Re the last battle despite the PS3's backwards compatibility its still got way more downsides, mostly to do with its astonishing price tag, as well as the price of its games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For people voting PS2 because it plays both sets of games, let the record show that the PS3 plays PS2 games, but it still got crushed by the PS2.

Only the first generation of PS3s were PS2 compatible (for example, my roommates PS3 cannot play PS2.

For all previous reasons listed, PS2. I also like to bring attention to the DVD player as it made it more than just a game system, something that became a staple of systems since.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't recall saying anything about the price in that post. Nor was I arguing that the PS3 deserved to win.

But brushing aside the PSX just because the PS2 can play its games is a weak argument.

I know, but you said about the PS3 being backwards compatible, but you have to remember, that console was still $200 more than the PS2 when that debuted, which was, and is backwards compatible, which was new at the time. Now, it's almost like a given, you kind of expect some form of BC.

Anyway, PS2 has the better games library in that the graphics of the games were at the level that games not only played great, but they started to look the part too. Also, near the end you have Earth Defense Force which is a fun game, Katamari Damacy and the first sequel, and of course the best GTA game ever in Vice City.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't recall saying anything about the price in that post. Nor was I arguing that the PS3 deserved to win.

But brushing aside the PSX just because the PS2 can play its games is a weak argument.

I know, but you said about the PS3 being backwards compatible, but you have to remember, that console was still $200 more than the PS2 when that debuted, which was, and is backwards compatible, which was new at the time. Now, it's almost like a given, you kind of expect some form of BC.

My point was that you can't vote system A over system B just because A plays B's games. There are more things to consider than that.

And backwards compatibility existed literally decades before the PS2. Both the 5200 and 7800 played 2600 games. The Mega Drive played Master System games. The SNES, N64, and Gamecube play Gameboy games.

Anyway, PS2 has the better games library in that the graphics of the games were at the level that games not only played great, but they started to look the part too. Also, near the end you have Earth Defense Force which is a fun game, Katamari Damacy and the first sequel, and of course the best GTA game ever in Vice City.

The PS2 had better games because it had better graphics? Seriously? That's an even playing field to judge on? Not even taking into account that the PS2 was graphically the weakest of its generation, that's a weird thing to argue.

And when did Earth Defense Force come out for PS2? I'm assuming that was PAL only.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PS2 is where we got to see Shadow of the collosus, a great game that looked nice, and had great gameplay, you also had ICO, a fun game that made not have been normal, but it was still fun, and looked not bad.

My point was that you can't vote system A over system B just because A plays B's games. There are more things to consider than that.

I agree, but really, this is an even match for me. With the addition of a DVD player, making it a double functioning console, it is the choice of the two that gets my vote. Also, the standard PS2 controller was a better fit, the analogue sticks, which were introduced during the PS1 era, became standard with the PS2, which helped as the sticks felt* more responsive than using the d-pad. So, for those reasons, I'm picking the PS2. The fact that it can be backwards compatible, is just an added bonus, you could technically*2 own a PS2 and a PS1 in one console in a sense, saving space.

*1: It probably did nothing to increase accuracy, but it felt better for most platform games.

*2: Before you say "Disk read error" I know that's a problem, even though, I never encountered it before.

And when did Earth Defense Force come out for PS2? I'm assuming that was PAL only.

I'll admit, I fucked up there. It was EDF 2017 for the 360 I was thinking of. My mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed the games on the PS2 better. I just feel sony did an amazing job making the PS2 feel like something special. They did it well to considering how much it outsold the technically superior x-box. I had a PSX early in its lifespan and while I enjoyed it, it never felt that amazing, I didn't get a PS2 until 2007, and had such a great library of games to back and pick through. PS2 was a lot of fun, and really easy to pick up and use, never felt intimidating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PS2, and that is a tough call for me, because I have a lot of fond memories of the PSX, more than of the PS2. But like I said in a previous round, the PS2 started the whole idea of a games console being the focal point in a lounge room. That alone can not be under estimated. It led to Sony including the BluRay in the PS3 which then helped BluRay win over HDDVD. Not that it matters to this particular battle, but the impact of including the DVD player in a games console just opened up the market. It still boggles my mind how many games were available for the PSX, it was an amazing run. PS2 gave us GoW though, so that is a big plus, but PSX gave us Gran Turismo. Damn it... I'm sticking with PS2 because of the whole lounge focal point thing, but like I said, it was very close.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The PSX.

I would argue it had better games, or, at least, more groundbreaking titles than its successor.

For all the talk of DVDs in thread, the technology isn't fundamentally different from the CD-ROM, it can just hold more stuff (meaning, longer videos, higher fidelity audio). The use of CDs, and the PSX was the first home video game console to successfully use them Stateside, changed the industry a lot more. Like those high quality pre-rendered video sequences prevalent in JRPGs? Thank compact discs. The relative openness of the format helped ease development costs, too, relative to the competition at Nintendo with its proprietary cartridges.

For me, revolution beats evolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To this point, I don't think there has been a better system made than the PS2. It took all the good from the PSX and streamlined it. Better titles, better sales and much bigger impact to the casual gamer.

PS2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.