It doesn't matter what the PS/2 has when the games look bad.
PS2 games don't look bad by any stretch of the imagination. There is alot of horsepower under the hood of a PS2, it's up to the developers to tap into it.
It's hard for me to play a lot of them because the graphics are so jagged.
I supposed that jaggies might make the game look less polished, but harder to play? If it's hard to play, it may be that the difficulty setting is too high for you, or maybe you dropped the controller when you were griping about the graphics. You really aught to try playing games instead of just looking at them. Maybe pick up an Atari 2600.You will learn a) what fun it is to play good games and b) what real jaggies are.
Square and Sony are a partnership, Square is a third party developer.
In 2000, Microsoft purchased Bungie outright (Oni and myth were released to Take Two interactive).This happened *before* the release of the Xbox, to ensure Halo would be developed for the Xbox. They knew gamers were dying for it, and at this point, they were not in the console business. So I would say that they abused their monopoly power.
Guess it was a good move on Microsoft's part to buy Bungie, making sure Halo would come out on Xbox first... without it, they probably wouldn't have sold nearly as many consoles.
Oh, that wouldn't be abuse of their monopoly power now would it??
The same company that would sell you their Network Walkman (NW-MS9 uses Memory Sticks, gets content via USB) for $499CDN will sell you CDs that you can't copy to it. The funny thing is the memory sticks this thing use are Magic Gate Memory Sticks, which is a Copyright Protection Technology.
Why not just stamp AOL on the top of these disks? they're just as useful.
Let me explain: normal TVs are in one format (NTSC), and movies are in a different, but all of the movies are wider than the TV, right?
I'll let you explain if you do it right. First off, NTSC is a video standard. Based on 30fps, 60Hz and 525 lines of resolution. On the other hand there is PAL, 50Hz (EU AC) 625 lines and 25fps. I'm guessing PAL TVs aren't normal? Anyways, Pan and scan and 'widescreen' refer to aspect ratio not broadcast standards.
"So, Pan & Scan movies aren't cropping, or zooming, or anything: all they're doing is displaying only a "portion" of the screen, and another remaining portion is left offscreen..." OK. sounds like cropping. Apart from that "All they're doing" is using equipment to select a 4:3 area of a 16:9 frame. Whatever is outside the area is dropped (ie. CROP) and what was inside is transfered to medium which can be a broadcast (to either a normal NTSC TV or a freakish PAL TV), or a VHS tape (or Beta!) and even DVD. They don't magically put the dropped off ends somewhere on the DVD as an extra feature, they're gone.
"After all, it's not like it's a different movie, or anything..." Yes, they are two different movies. There is the original wide screen which is how the director intended the audience to see it, and then there's the pan & scan which drops off meaningful information so Joe Six Pack's screen will be full of picture. refer to This wonderful site for some examples of the butchery pan and scan does to a wide aspect movie, and why they support original aspect ratio for movies.
"it's not the black bars - it's the fact that you're tossing resolution in one direction to gain information (which may be meaningless) in another." Look into Anamorphic displays or a technique called the Anamorphic Squeeze on Google. As far as "which may be meaningless" goes... If I were to edit your post so that it would fit in one paragraph, and dropped what I felt was least important... well, your rant would look a whole lot different than what you intended it to. That's why alot of people don't like pan and scan.
Look, it's not a bad idea that you had. But it's years too late. By the time the standards got changed, the machines built and the movies remastered, it would be 2006, and guess what the aspect ratio of the Normal TVs will look like then?
Slashdot Mirror
"from the massive-layoffs-coming-soon dept"
From all of the employees of Compaq and HP who read Slashdot, Thanks for the reminder.
PS2 games don't look bad by any stretch of the imagination. There is alot of horsepower under the hood of a PS2, it's up to the developers to tap into it.
It's hard for me to play a lot of them because the graphics are so jagged.I supposed that jaggies might make the game look less polished, but harder to play? If it's hard to play, it may be that the difficulty setting is too high for you, or maybe you dropped the controller when you were griping about the graphics. You really aught to try playing games instead of just looking at them. Maybe pick up an Atari 2600.You will learn a) what fun it is to play good games and b) what real jaggies are.
I tried the posted link but all I got back was "Press Play on Tape"
In 2000, Microsoft purchased Bungie outright (Oni and myth were released to Take Two interactive).This happened *before* the release of the Xbox, to ensure Halo would be developed for the Xbox. They knew gamers were dying for it, and at this point, they were not in the console business. So I would say that they abused their monopoly power.
Oh, that wouldn't be abuse of their monopoly power now would it??
Mentions Post 9/11: Ch... uhm. Hey! I'm shocked!
Sounds like a commercial for the army.
When I heard of people getting 'married' in these games, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.Funny that: When I heard "I really like that ring" in real life, I had the same reaction.
Why not just stamp AOL on the top of these disks? they're just as useful.
Let me explain: normal TVs are in one format (NTSC), and movies are in a different, but all of the movies are wider than the TV, right?
I'll let you explain if you do it right. First off, NTSC is a video standard. Based on 30fps, 60Hz and 525 lines of resolution. On the other hand there is PAL, 50Hz (EU AC) 625 lines and 25fps. I'm guessing PAL TVs aren't normal? Anyways, Pan and scan and 'widescreen' refer to aspect ratio not broadcast standards.
"So, Pan & Scan movies aren't cropping, or zooming, or anything: all they're doing is displaying only a "portion" of the screen, and another remaining portion is left offscreen..."
OK. sounds like cropping. Apart from that "All they're doing" is using equipment to select a 4:3 area of a 16:9 frame. Whatever is outside the area is dropped (ie. CROP) and what was inside is transfered to medium which can be a broadcast (to either a normal NTSC TV or a freakish PAL TV), or a VHS tape (or Beta!) and even DVD. They don't magically put the dropped off ends somewhere on the DVD as an extra feature, they're gone.
"After all, it's not like it's a different movie, or anything..."
Yes, they are two different movies. There is the original wide screen which is how the director intended the audience to see it, and then there's the pan & scan which drops off meaningful information so Joe Six Pack's screen will be full of picture. refer to This wonderful site for some examples of the butchery pan and scan does to a wide aspect movie, and why they support original aspect ratio for movies.
"it's not the black bars - it's the fact that you're tossing resolution in one direction to gain information (which may be meaningless) in another." Look into Anamorphic displays or a technique called the Anamorphic Squeeze on Google. As far as "which may be meaningless" goes... If I were to edit your post so that it would fit in one paragraph, and dropped what I felt was least important... well, your rant would look a whole lot different than what you intended it to. That's why alot of people don't like pan and scan.
Look, it's not a bad idea that you had. But it's years too late. By the time the standards got changed, the machines built and the movies remastered, it would be 2006, and guess what the aspect ratio of the Normal TVs will look like then?