That's it, I'm officially spoiled by PC gaming.

[shrekfan246]

The GPU was admittedly a bit closer matched, but still lagged behind any of its immediate competitors from Nvidia and ATI by a fair margin.

Nvidia themselves claim that the PS2 was faster than their machines.
http://www.pcpowerplay.com.au/feature/nvidia-interview-the-sky-isnt-falling,389941

Because he doesn't know as much about consoles as he claims?

The fact that he only mentions the PS2 when, again, it was the weakest console of its generation pretty much shows that. If the PS2 was better than PCs, then the Gamecube and Xbox would have been supercomputers (and I mean, they were pretty expensive, but not that expensive). Nvidia has never had much stake in the console market, so it wouldn't be surprising for someone from there to not really know the specifics, especially ten years down the line.

What the PS2 did have was a unique processor that had two vector units, and one of those vector units could work independently of the rest of the CPU. It allowed it a loophole that could wiggle around the fact that it didn't have the same raw horsepower (because, to be honest, raw power isn't everything). It also had dedicated memory on the GPU which was faster than the Gamecube or Xbox, but couldn't cache as much. The PS2's GPU also was the only one that didn't have a unit to support "transform & lighting":

Transformation is the task of producing a two-dimensional view of a three-dimensional scene.
. . .
Lighting is the task of altering the colour of the various surfaces of the scene on the basis of lighting information.

Now, if your argument is that the PS2 was a better investment in terms of performance than a PC of the same price at the time, then you may be correct. That's a pattern which has always been relatively true with regards to PC gaming. A $300 PC in 2001 may very well have been slower than the PS2, particularly because the chances are it wouldn't have been built specifically for playing games.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

snip

I wouldn't call the PS2 the "Wii" of its generation. It has a VERY large 3rd party catalog of classics that actually sold. And it being a cheap DVD player also helped it sell. The PS2 was the "Wii" in terms of tech, but its catalog and its catalog's success sets it apart.

The Wii may have had a lackluster library, but it vastly outsold the PS3 or Xbox 360, so the comparison still largely stands.

EDIT: I don't call it the Wii of its generation to insult it. The good games that actually came to the Wii were typically very good, and I believe the only reason the PS2 had the support it did was because it was the easiest console for Japanese companies to develop for. Nintendo has a long history of being inconvenient for third-party developers, and the Xbox has never really been huge in Japan. Many of the Western-developed PS2 games are tat, or were multi-platform and thus better on another system (obviously not a blanket truth, but in general; most of the classics people recall from the PS2's library tend to be Japanese-developed)

I hear what your saying, but the Wii didn't outsell the other 2 consoles by as large a margin you're making it out to. It only sold 20 million more than the other to. The PS2's sales numbers compared to the GC and OG Xbox were much, much bigger. For the reasons you did mention.

You are right with the PS2 being the easiest for Japanese to develop for though. That helped a hell of a lot. Xbox wasn't just unpopular in Japan. Europe has also favoured PS consoles every generation.

To me, the PS2 isn't comparable to the the Wii in any way other than its relative tech compared to its competitors. The PS2 didn't have as sharp of a sales fatigue as the Wii did.

With the amount of Japanese games getting PC releases these days though, I can't see the generation after this one being as impressive for any console sales. I'm honestly surprised the PS4 is selling as well as it is considering there's really not that many exclusives worth buying the console for. And the Japanese titles that are interesting, wind up on the PS Vita and PC which I own.

I'd be more interested in Persona 5 for example if I didn't know they were going to make a "Golden" edition for handheld with more content like they usually do.

 

[shrekfan246]

snip

I wouldn't call the PS2 the "Wii" of its generation. It has a VERY large 3rd party catalog of classics that actually sold. And it being a cheap DVD player also helped it sell. The PS2 was the "Wii" in terms of tech, but its catalog and its catalog's success sets it apart.

The Wii may have had a lackluster library, but it vastly outsold the PS3 or Xbox 360, so the comparison still largely stands.

EDIT: I don't call it the Wii of its generation to insult it. The good games that actually came to the Wii were typically very good, and I believe the only reason the PS2 had the support it did was because it was the easiest console for Japanese companies to develop for. Nintendo has a long history of being inconvenient for third-party developers, and the Xbox has never really been huge in Japan. Many of the Western-developed PS2 games are tat, or were multi-platform and thus better on another system (obviously not a blanket truth, but in general; most of the classics people recall from the PS2's library tend to be Japanese-developed)

I hear what your saying, but the Wii didn't outsell the other 2 consoles by as large a margin you're making it out to. It only sold 20 million more than the other to. The PS2's sales numbers compared to the GC and OG Xbox were much, much bigger. For the reasons you did mention.

You are right with the PS2 being the easiest for Japanese to develop for though. That helped a hell of a lot. Xbox wasn't just unpopular in Japan. Europe has also favoured PS consoles every generation.

To me, the PS2 isn't comparable to the the Wii in any way other than its relative tech compared to its competitors. The PS2 didn't have as sharp of a sales fatigue as the Wii did.

The point of a metaphor is that it doesn't have to be exact? I mean, fair enough if you want to focus on the specifics more than I care to, but I made the comparison because the Wii and PS2 were both technically weaker than their competitors but still ended up being wildly more successful for their respective companies. The Wii petered out at the middle-end of its life in a way that the PS2 didn't, but it still made a lot of money for Nintendo.

 

[Asclepion]

Now, if your argument is that the PS2 was a better investment in terms of performance than a PC of the same price at the time, then you may be correct. That's a pattern which has always been relatively true with regards to PC gaming. A $300 PC in 2001 may very well have been slower than the PS2, particularly because the chances are it wouldn't have been built specifically for playing games.

I don't think anyone seriously believes otherwise (that it is impossible to built a PC as powerful as a console), so end price is kind of the implicit point.

It amuses me that the one time this PC zealot has anything good to say about a console, everyone is so quick to tell me it's weaker than I give it credit for.

 

[shrekfan246]

Now, if your argument is that the PS2 was a better investment in terms of performance than a PC of the same price at the time, then you may be correct. That's a pattern which has always been relatively true with regards to PC gaming. A $300 PC in 2001 may very well have been slower than the PS2, particularly because the chances are it wouldn't have been built specifically for playing games.

I don't think anyone seriously believes otherwise (that it is impossible to built a PC as powerful as a console), so end price is kind of the implicit point.

It amuses me that the one time this PC zealot has anything good to say about a console, everyone is so quick to tell me it's weaker than I give it credit for.

Well, yes, the affordabilityower ratio is one reason why consoles always had a place in the market to begin with. They were built to be dedicated gaming machines, so they could afford to strip out a lot of things that PCs typically used and they could cut corners in order to reduce overhead prices. I'm not sure anyone has tried to argue differently. At the very least, that, along with plug-and-play capability, is one of the points that is most often brought up whenever people start arguing about the value of consoles vs. PCs.

For clarity, I was responding to your initial post with the impression that the discussion would be focused on gaming PCs specifically, and if that's not what you were talking about then I apologize.

 

[Asclepion]

Well, yes, the affordabilityower ratio is one reason why consoles always had a place in the market to begin with. They were built to be dedicated gaming machines, so they could afford to strip out a lot of things that PCs typically used and they could cut corners in order to reduce overhead prices. I'm not sure anyone has tried to argue differently. At the very least, that, along with plug-and-play capability, is one of the points that is most often brought up whenever people start arguing about the value of consoles vs. PCs.

For clarity, I was responding to your initial post with the impression that the discussion would be focused on gaming PCs specifically, and if that's not what you were talking about then I apologize.

No need to. As for the distinction between gaming PCs and regular PCs, I think Nvidia guy is saying that PC gaming when the PS2 was released was more niche than today (certainly before Steam), so PCs that would crush it would be enthusiast setups.

OP: By the way, the PC I'm writing this on uses 3 SSD's in RAID 0. Everything loads in a flash and often I can barely read more than the first few words of whatever lore/tips the game is trying to tell me.

 

[Poetic Nova]

Well that is what bad programming looks like, dump the whole memory and start a complete bulk load every single time... worst possible waste of resources.

Exactly. From Software is horrible with the technical aspects of making a game. With the amount of RAM the PS4 has, there's no reason you should have to reload everything. Same thing with the framerate drops is certain areas of From's games; there's no reason for for those drops considering none of the games are actually pushing high-end graphics or using the hardware to its full potential.

Can't agree nor disagree (only bought Demon Souls today for one, so I'm not familiar how From's recent titles run) but one thing I did notice while playing King's Field: it loads everything beforehand, so I am kinda surprised to hear that maps can't be streamed like in KF, atleast to a certain degree.

 

[laggyteabag]

I certainly understand. Being able to play everything consistently at 1080p 60FPS with controls that I actually enjoy playing with is certainly something that I appreciate. Long load times are also something that I dont see anymore. I remember buying Mass Effect 3 on my PC, then going to my friend's house who had it on his 360, and difference between the load times was practically night and day.

I love my PC.

 

[Bad Jim]

You think those loading times are bad? Try playing some of the later Total War games. I hope you brought a book.

No seriously, it's common practise to bring a book when you play it

You complain about loading screens, but you only adopted loading screens. I was born with them, molded by them. By the time my mission in Wing Commander 3 loaded, I was already a man.

Seriously, load times for Wing Commander 3 missions were in excess of FIFTEEN MINUTES. I would literally finish CHAPTERS while waiting.

Luxury!

We would have dreamed of such swift load times. On our Commodore 64, I could write an entire book, send it out to publishers, and get letters back saying "Dear Bad Jim, your novel sucks" before our games loaded. R-Type was the worst, as if you weren't good you might only play it for a minute before it would force you to rewind the tape, load the title screen, then load the first level again.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Luxury!

We would have dreamed of such swift load times. On our Commodore 64, I could write an entire book, send it out to publishers, and get letters back saying "Dear Bad Jim, your novel sucks" before our games loaded. R-Type was the worst, as if you weren't good you might only play it for a minute before it would force you to rewind the tape, load the title screen, then load the first level again.

Hey I had a Commodore 64 too! Unite!

Alas, I'm too fucking old to remember that far back. I was young, and thus am sure I enjoyed the infinite patience of youth.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Can't disagree nor disagree (only bought Demon Souls today for one, so I'm not familiar how From's recent titles run) but one thing I did notice while playing King's Field: it loads everything beforehand, so I am kinda surprised to hear that maps can't be streamed like in KF, atleast to a certain degree.

Yeah, you can go through all the game's levels without loading. But when you die it takes like 40 seconds to load back to the closest lamp even if you die 5 feet from the lamp. It's just bad programming. I only played Dark Souls before this, but I'm pretty sure Dark Souls had barely any loading after a death. It's seriously faster to quit out the game, download a save, and reload the whole game vs getting back to a boss the normal way even with shortcuts open.

I certainly understand. Being able to play everything consistently at 1080p 60FPS with controls that I actually enjoy playing with is certainly something that I appreciate. Long load times are also something that I dont see anymore. I remember buying Mass Effect 3 on my PC, then going to my friend's house who had it on his 360, and difference between the load times was practically night and day.

I love my PC.

That's because all 360s didn't come with HDs so the games had to work via the disc only. Load times between console and PC should be basically the same since pretty much all data is stored on the HD. And PC gaming isn't that awesome with load times either. Loading a save in Divinity: Original Sin off an SSD isn't that fast when that game isn't even pushing the graphics that much. Loading issues are going to be with the programming nowadays like Bloodborne's loading not being the PS4's fault but From's fault.

 

[vallorn]

You think those loading times are bad? Try playing some of the later Total War games. I hope you brought a book.

No seriously, it's common practise to bring a book when you play it

You complain about loading screens, but you only adopted loading screens. I was born with them, molded by them. By the time my mission in Wing Commander 3 loaded, I was already a man.

Seriously, load times for Wing Commander 3 missions were in excess of FIFTEEN MINUTES. I would literally finish CHAPTERS while waiting.

Hah! I remember just logging in to my school's PCs back when I was at Secondary school in the UK would give me enough time to complete a chapter of homework!

Game loading times have gotten a chapter in my memory also. I used to play a lot of PS1 with my dad and some of the games on that system... My god Forsaken was wonderful but I swear I could read The Silmarillion front to back before it's levels loaded up.

 

[thoughtwrangler]

I like PC's relatively progressive stance with regard to digital distribution and.. uhh, that's really about it. I keep hoping that someday the Nintendo eShop will be as comprehensive as Steam or even GOG, but no dice.

Other than that, meh. Sure, I like a couple PC-only games. But for all I care, 98% of them may as well exist in an alternate universe.

 

[CrystalShadow]

You think those loading times are bad? Try playing some of the later Total War games. I hope you brought a book.

No seriously, it's common practise to bring a book when you play it

You complain about loading screens, but you only adopted loading screens. I was born with them, molded by them. By the time my mission in Wing Commander 3 loaded, I was already a man.

Seriously, load times for Wing Commander 3 missions were in excess of FIFTEEN MINUTES. I would literally finish CHAPTERS while waiting.

What are you on about? Loading times for wing commander 3 were never that bad.., At least, not on PC...
Don't tell me you played a console port... You did, didn't you? You poor, poor thing...

Personally, owing to my Nintendo bias, loading times were a weakness of PC games until well into the 2000's.

The N64 didn't have any, but the wait with PC games got longer and longer...

The few times I used a PS1 though... Ugh. Those loading times killed me. How did anyone put up with that!?

Then again it wasn't as bad as trying to load something from tape on an Atari 800XL home computer.
I didn't have the patience usually.
Not surprising given loading times of 45 minutes or more...

I found my pc went from takIng minutes to a few seconds though with some games after I upgraded my RAM, so loading times don't always happen for the most obvious reasons...

 

[RedDeadFred]

Ya... my SSD has spoiled me too. When I can be in game of just about any game in my library within 30 seconds of pushing the on button, it really puts in perspective how much time I wasted looking at loading screens. It's like how Netflix has spoiled me in regards to no commercials. I can't stand watching normal TV anymore because of the amount of time being wasted.

 

[StreamerDarkly]

As has been brought up, I think it's really more down to poor optimization on the part of the Bloodborne developers. Even with an SSD the load times would still be obnoxious. If you think about the map design in the game - not so much open world as connected sets of rooms and courtyards with no line of sight between them - it's really hard to believe they aren't able to start play quickly and do more loading on the fly. Even going back to Hunter's dream takes forever despite being a tiny area.

In any case, a patch is apparently on the way which is supposed to improve the load times.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

What are you on about? Loading times for wing commander 3 were never that bad.., At least, not on PC...

They were on the PC I played it on. =\

 

[irishda]

While many complaints of younger generations are just nostalgia, I feel one is valid: the utter loss of patience. I mean it was obviously bound to happen as technology accelerated, but it's just upsetting to see how people react to the very major inconvenience known as "waiting" these days.

It doesn't help that I see this topic shortly after finding this post on Imgur just yesterday.

http://i.imgur.com/qcG2K6c.jpg

 

[CrystalShadow]

What are you on about? Loading times for wing commander 3 were never that bad.., At least, not on PC...

They were on the PC I played it on. =\

Ouch. I wonder why then. I mean I wasn't exactly playing it on anything impressive, I think... Probably a 33 mhz 486. I know I had a big enough hard drive to install the 50 mb 'common files', but other than that, and awkward cdrom swaps at some points, I don't recall the loading times being particularly bad. I'd say less than 5 minutes at the most...

Strange.

edit: actually, thinking about it, I had a 4x cdrom drive back then. If the loading times are because of cd access speeds, it might make sense if you played it on a system with a single speed drive. That would make what's a 4 minute load for me be a 16 minute load for you...

Can't check of course. I still have those old disks, and a GOG version, but testing it on a modern pc with a 52x drive, or worse, the whole thing on a modern high speed hard drive wouldn't be anything like what it was like back then...

 

[asdfen]

Dont remember long load times on Wing Commander 3 either, but could be my memory