Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

PlayStation 2 Timeline, From Launch to Present

Posted by simoniker on from the riding-the-sony-pony dept.

Decaffeinated Jedi writes "GameSpy has posted a timeline charting the history Sony's PlayStation 2, the third part in a series previously covered on Slashdot that includes similar retrospectives for the Xbox and for GameCube. The timeline traces the PlayStation 2's history from its initial boom, through its period as 'a repository for bad sports games, giant robot games, and other disappointing releases,' and up to the console's revitalization by such games as Gran Turismo 3, Metal Gear Solid 2, Devil May Cry, and Grand Theft Auto III." How has the PlayStation 2 measured up to your expectations?

4 of 83 comments (clear)

  1. Not that great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How has the PlayStation 2 measured up to your expectations?

    Poorly.

    The hardware is better than the Playstation 1, sure, but because it was so difficult to make games for, the first generation of titles barely looked any better than Playstation 1 titles. They had higher resolution, slightly better textures - but that's about it.

    And even the games that make the best use of the hardware today still aren't very good from a technical standpoint. The Playstation 2 can't even do anti-aliasing and trilinear filtering. Something that a bottom-of-the-range 3Dfx graphics accelerator could easily do in 1998. I mean, look closely at Soul Calibur on the Dreamcast. Nothing on the Playstation 2 has ever come close to looking that clear, crisp and vibrant - including the native PS2 Soul Calibur 2 release.

    And the best Playstation 2 titles just look kind of average in comparison to the best on Xbox and Gamecube. Splinter Cell and Crimson Skies on Xbox both look amazing. The best PS2 titles look.. well.. merely okay underneath all the rendering artifacts and lack of high-quality models and textures.

    The PS2 has the best controller, best memory cards, best sleek case design. But it also has the worst technology - worst video hardware, worst processor, worst CD-drive (that is really noisy!) and worst load times.

    A textbook triumph of marketing over technology.

    1. Re:Not that great. by TechnoPops · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A textbook triumph of marketing over technology.

      The thing you seem to forget is that Sony was first. Yes, compared to Xbox and the cube, the PS2 hardware seems kind of lame, but the PS2 was also the first out the gate... with over a year of lead time. Sony set the bar, and MS and the Big N naturally aimed over it.

      --
      "Each time you smile, it'll only last awhile. Life may be scary, but it's only temporary."
    2. Re:Not that great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The thing you seem to forget is that Sony was first.

      Um... you're forgetting about Sega's Dreamcast? It was the first console with "real" 3D hardware (after the Nintendo 64) and even had a built-in modem.

      It had specs similar to the Gamecube - even though it reached the market way before the PS2 did, Sony's marketing destroyed it. This was part of the problem though - the Dreamcast was perceived by the public as a late-comer to the previous generation - not as a machine way ahead of it's time. I almost think that if they'd delayed and released it later (just before the PS2) Sega probably would have had some form of long-term success with the Dreamcast.

  2. It surprises me. . . by M3wThr33 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For as many failed units that Sony throws out, it still amazes me when people associate the word Sony with Quality.