DC vs. PS2 NBA 2K2: DC version looks better?
P. Lee
looks brighter and controls better. Is it just me or does anybody else
feel the same way?
Daniel Mercier
videogames store. He couldn't believe me when I described MDK2 or Rayman 2
or DoA2 or 18-Wheeler or Crazy Taxi or Fur Fighters or Wacky Races or NBA
2K2 as seeming brighter, more vibrant, offering in fact a more organic feel
on the DC than on the PS2. The way textures are handled by the respective
platform, I guess, which seems to have nothing to do with each polygons
pushing power. Actually, to my eyes (literally) only a few games on the PS2
have been able to hold a candle against their DC counterparts as far as this
said "organic impact" is concerned: Z.O.E., Jack & Daxter, Kessen 2, Final
Fantasy X, Rez, Baldur's Gate, SSX, ICO, and a few others did pretty well.
So in general, games look less realistic, more 'cartoonish' on the DC and in
some cases it turns out to be for the better (ex: F355, Daytona USA, JGR,
Skies of Arcadia...). GT3 or MGS2, on the other hand, would maybe not look
so good with a DC-style texturing. And in the same vein, upcoming DC to PS2
ports such as Headhunter may end up looking better (more realistic) on the
PS2.
Daniel
"P. Lee" <pst...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:3C4949D...@netzero.net...
Sweet Zombie Jesus
news:iIi28.11204$vP.13...@wagner.videotron.net...
> That's exactly what I was telling a sceptical salesclerk yesterday in a
> videogames store. He couldn't believe me when I described MDK2 or Rayman 2
> or DoA2 or 18-Wheeler or Crazy Taxi or Fur Fighters or Wacky Races or NBA
> 2K2 as seeming brighter, more vibrant, offering in fact a more organic
feel
> on the DC than on the PS2
Um...Wacky Races never came out on PS2. But anyway, I agree with your port
comparissons except for Fur Fighters. I had DC Fur Fighters and picked up
the PS2 version from Target since it was only $15..and MAN, it SMOKES the DC
version. Not only does the cel shading look fantastic, ESPECIALLY on the
bosses, but the framerate is almost a constant 60fps, while the DC version
was 30. There are more enemies, more levels, more bear "death animations",
full voice overs instead of jibberish...I'm not a big fan of DC-to-PS2
ports, but Bizzare really outdid themselves in making the PS2 Fur Fighters
special, and it's a completely under rated game.
--
-Greg
==============================================
"Shut your noise-tube, taco human!!!"
-Invader ZIm
==============================================
WeaponX
its just a quick dirt port of a DC game so it shouldn't surprise anyone if
its not as good, the NFL2K series has already fallen behind Madden and even
a newbie like NFL Fever so Sega can keep doing shoddy ports if they want,
they're just not going to last too long as a 3rd party publisher if they
continue to keep it up
Daniel Mercier
one game I really liked a lot on the DC and which I have seen running but
not actually replayed on the PS2.
"Sweet Zombie Jesus" <jamofo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7ej28.8858$X4.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
patrick005
I've been wanting to know, how does the PS2 NBA2K2 do free throws?
Is it the same as the DC version and did it work well for the Dual Shock 2?
I have the DC version, and my friend is considering getting a copy for the
PS2.
--
"it's all about the games right?"
patrick005
P. Lee
throws. It works quite well for the PS2
patrick005
> > I've been wanting to know, how does the PS2 NBA2K2 do
> > free throws?
>
> You use the 2 analog sticks and point them to the middle for free
> throws. It works quite well for the PS2
cool, smart decision on Visual Concepts part. This is probably a lot more
accessible for many gamers out there who had a hard time controlling the
analog triggers of the Dreamcast.
I wonder if they'll do the same with the X-Box and GameCube versions.
Bent Leads
> comparissons except for Fur Fighters. I had DC Fur Fighters and picked up
> the PS2 version from Target since it was only $15..and MAN, it SMOKES the DC
> version. Not only does the cel shading look fantastic, ESPECIALLY on the
> bosses, but the framerate is almost a constant 60fps, while the DC version
> was 30. There are more enemies, more levels, more bear "death animations",
> full voice overs instead of jibberish...I'm not a big fan of DC-to-PS2
> ports, but Bizzare really outdid themselves in making the PS2 Fur Fighters
> special, and it's a completely under rated game.
Okay, but how is the fluffmatch mode on PS2? The thing that killed it
for me on DC was the auto-aiming. It was just too easy for you to hit
another player. You don't even really have to try to aim and you will
get a hit. Also, did they add bots this time around?
Sweet Zombie Jesus
news:95f8cf74.02011...@posting.google.com...
> Okay, but how is the fluffmatch mode on PS2? The thing that killed it
> for me on DC was the auto-aiming. It was just too easy for you to hit
> another player. You don't even really have to try to aim and you will
> get a hit.
I'm not sure, as I haven't tried it yet. I bought the game for the massive
50 hr + action/shooting/platforming, not multiplayer.
> Also, did they add bots this time around?
I have no idea what that is.
John Cauthen
> looks brighter and controls better. Is it just me or does anybody else
> feel the same way?
I agree. I own the PS2 version and have played the Dreamcast version
(although I don't own it for my DC). However, the PS2 version plays a much
better game of basketball, IMO. It is the best action basketball game I've
ever played. The images in the DC version are sharper because of the
anti-aliasing. The PS2 version looks a bit jaggy in comparison.
Still, I'd prefer to own the PS2 version because of the clear advantage in
gameplay. The difference in the graphics is not enough to worry about.
I'll be interested to see what Video Concepts can do next time out on the
PS2. I think they've done quite well considering the amount of time they've
had to spend with it.
John Cauthen
Peter Berger
I agree completely. I own a DC, PS2, and Xbox, and out of the
three, the PS2 games -generally- look the worst of the bunch, with
a few notable exceptions (Baldur's Gate: Dark Legacy, for example).
I always felt the PS2's graphical superiority was a clear case
of the Emperor's New Clothes. Mind you, I don't think this is
due to limitations of the system. I have two theories that intertwine:
1) PS2 is very hard to program for.
2) Most PS2 games started their lives being developed for PS1.
So the development tools people are using are all -really- just
putting out PS1 games with 'better' textures, but they're using the
same strange tricks that made PS1 games look better -- except they
make PS2 games look worse.
I think this is basically a matter of taste; many PS2 games look like
crap to me because they have what me and my friends call "the fuzzy."
All of the PS1 games have the fuzzy. Ico (the best game I've played
all year, and one I recommend unreservedly) has the fuzzy. GTA3 has
the fuzzy. Jak and Daxter doesn't have the fuzzy, although it has
a little bit of the jaggy, and Baldur's Gate has neither the fuzzy nor
the jaggy (and is the best game I've seen so far).
I think a lot of people don't notice the fuzzy because they owned
a PS1 and are used to it. They think videogames are supposed to
look bad; they're wrong, but you'll never convince them.
I guess what pisses me off is that you -know- the PS2 games don't
HAVE to look like crap. Look at FF X; you have the pre-rendered
screens, which look beautiful, and then you cut into the combat scenes,
which look ugly (again, everything here is in my opinion). It wouldn't
bother me so much if this stuff wasn't being produced while at the
same time dreamcast titles like Soul Calibur looked better than nearly
anything on PS2. And Baldur's Gate proves that PS2 games -can- look
good. So why do so many of them look so bad?
The X-box...well, the x-box has its issues, lord knows, what with
the reliability complaints. But no one can complain about the graphics.
They look beautiful. Project Gotham Racing and Halo by themselves are
head and shoulders above everything else I've seen on Ps2. Now we just
have to hope that the X-box library eventually becomes anywhere near
as strong as the excellent PS2 library.
I rented a gamecube, and thought it looked nice -- not as nice graphics
as the X-box, but really good, very sharp, crisp, and I *love* the
form factor -- it's so cuuuuute! I'll probably get one when Banjo-Kazooie
III comes out; right now none of the games on the cube excite me too
much, except Luigi's Mansion, which I've been told is very short.
Anyway, that's my brief review of the state of the console world.
I think the PS2 is a strong console with lots of potential, but
we need to start correctly identifying games that look like crap
and not mindlessly being fanboys (or fangirls) for our fav0rit3
3l33t conz0lez. We have choices. That's a good thing.
-Peter
WeaponX
> I always felt the PS2's graphical superiority was a clear case
> of the Emperor's New Clothes. Mind you, I don't think this is
> due to limitations of the system. I have two theories that intertwine:
>
> 1) PS2 is very hard to program for.
> 2) Most PS2 games started their lives being developed for PS1.
>
> So the development tools people are using are all -really- just
> putting out PS1 games with 'better' textures, but they're using the
> same strange tricks that made PS1 games look better -- except they
> make PS2 games look worse.
3) they're using renderware to port DC games quickly onto the PS2
4) they're new to the PS2, so this is more or less their 1st gen software
> I think this is basically a matter of taste; many PS2 games look like
> crap to me because they have what me and my friends call "the fuzzy."
> All of the PS1 games have the fuzzy. Ico (the best game I've played
> all year, and one I recommend unreservedly) has the fuzzy. GTA3 has
> the fuzzy. Jak and Daxter doesn't have the fuzzy, although it has
> a little bit of the jaggy, and Baldur's Gate has neither the fuzzy nor
> the jaggy (and is the best game I've seen so far).
wrong, PS1 games weren't fuzzy, they were pixelated, hope you know the
difference
> I think a lot of people don't notice the fuzzy because they owned
> a PS1 and are used to it. They think videogames are supposed to
> look bad; they're wrong, but you'll never convince them.
I think you don't notice that the majority of people just play games on their
TVs instead of using a VGA adapter and playing it on a monitor
> I guess what pisses me off is that you -know- the PS2 games don't
> HAVE to look like crap. Look at FF X; you have the pre-rendered
> screens, which look beautiful, and then you cut into the combat scenes,
> which look ugly (again, everything here is in my opinion). It wouldn't
> bother me so much if this stuff wasn't being produced while at the
> same time dreamcast titles like Soul Calibur looked better than nearly
> anything on PS2. And Baldur's Gate proves that PS2 games -can- look
> good. So why do so many of them look so bad?
>
> The X-box...well, the x-box has its issues, lord knows, what with
> the reliability complaints. But no one can complain about the graphics.
> They look beautiful. Project Gotham Racing and Halo by themselves are
> head and shoulders above everything else I've seen on Ps2. Now we just
> have to hope that the X-box library eventually becomes anywhere near
> as strong as the excellent PS2 library.
>
> I rented a gamecube, and thought it looked nice -- not as nice graphics
> as the X-box, but really good, very sharp, crisp, and I *love* the
> form factor -- it's so cuuuuute! I'll probably get one when Banjo-Kazooie
> III comes out; right now none of the games on the cube excite me too
> much, except Luigi's Mansion, which I've been told is very short.
> I think the PS2 is a strong console with lots of potential, but
> we need to start correctly identifying games that look like crap
> and not mindlessly being fanboys (or fangirls) for our fav0rit3
> 3l33t conz0lez. We have choices. That's a good thing.
don't worry, there will always be consoles for morons like you only care about
graphics, these consoles never last long though and people like you are always
left wondering why it died so quickly, maybe someday you'll figure out that its
because gameplay matters more than graphics
Joe Ottoson
>
> Peter Berger wrote:
>
> > I always felt the PS2's graphical superiority was a clear case
> > of the Emperor's New Clothes. Mind you, I don't think this is
> > due to limitations of the system. I have two theories that intertwine:
> >
> > 1) PS2 is very hard to program for.
> > 2) Most PS2 games started their lives being developed for PS1.
> >
> > So the development tools people are using are all -really- just
> > putting out PS1 games with 'better' textures, but they're using the
> > same strange tricks that made PS1 games look better -- except they
> > make PS2 games look worse.
>
> 3) they're using renderware to port DC games quickly onto the PS2
>
> 4) they're new to the PS2, so this is more or less their 1st gen software
Dunno how anyone can see new vids of the PS2 port of VF4 and claim that
the PS2 has no muscle without looking like a bitter idiot fanboy...
Of course, I've never seen it successfully carried off as well. ;)
> > I think this is basically a matter of taste; many PS2 games look like
> > crap to me because they have what me and my friends call "the fuzzy."
> > All of the PS1 games have the fuzzy. Ico (the best game I've played
> > all year, and one I recommend unreservedly) has the fuzzy. GTA3 has
> > the fuzzy. Jak and Daxter doesn't have the fuzzy, although it has
> > a little bit of the jaggy, and Baldur's Gate has neither the fuzzy nor
> > the jaggy (and is the best game I've seen so far).
>
> wrong, PS1 games weren't fuzzy, they were pixelated, hope you know the
> difference
They were dithered to death mainly.
> > I think a lot of people don't notice the fuzzy because they owned
> > a PS1 and are used to it. They think videogames are supposed to
> > look bad; they're wrong, but you'll never convince them.
>
> I think you don't notice that the majority of people just play games on their
> TVs instead of using a VGA adapter and playing it on a monitor
Even then, the man's nuts. How was Tekken Tag "the fuzzy" while Soul
Calibur was not "the fuzzy" and so on?
Peter Berger
>Peter Berger wrote:
>> I think this is basically a matter of taste; many PS2 games look like
>> crap to me because they have what me and my friends call "the fuzzy."
>> All of the PS1 games have the fuzzy. Ico (the best game I've played
>> all year, and one I recommend unreservedly) has the fuzzy.
>don't worry, there will always be consoles for morons like you only care about
>graphics, these consoles never last long though and people like you are always
>left wondering why it died so quickly, maybe someday you'll figure out that its
>because gameplay matters more than graphics
Well, If I have to be accused of being "a moron that only cares about
graphics," at least I've been accused by someone so stupid that they
don't even know how to read.
Graphics -aren't- the only important thing. Gameplay -is- hideously
important. That's why I recommended Ico, above. However, the PS2
critique of the dreamcast was "PS2's graphics are better." I'm just
pointing out that for many games, this isn't true. In other words,
I'm criticizing the PS2 on the basis Sony's marketing department chose.
As someone that -does- worry about gameplay, the nice thing is that
-every- console is for me, since there's nothing intrinsic to the
PS2 (or any other console, for that matter) that makes gameplay on
it better than any other. Hell, _Adventure_ for the Atari VCS
is still one of the best games I've played to date. It's certainly
better than Final Fantasy X, anyway (zing!)
I'll never understand why people take constructive criticism of
a mere consumer electronics item so personally. And yes, that
goes for owners of -every- major (and not-so-major) console, not
just the (fuzzy) 600 pound gorilla that currently owns the market.
-Peter
PS: And yes, I play my videogames on a TV like everyone
else. The Fuzzy, I think, has more to do with poor development
tools and programming technique than someone as crude as NTSC
signalling. I'm comparing apples to apples.
PPS: Well, I do play text adventures on my computer monitor.
I guess that's because I care more about graphics than anything
else, or something.
WeaponX
> In article <3C4CFE12...@null.ca>, WeaponX <W...@null.ca> wrote:
> >Peter Berger wrote:
> >> I think this is basically a matter of taste; many PS2 games look like
> >> crap to me because they have what me and my friends call "the fuzzy."
> >> All of the PS1 games have the fuzzy. Ico (the best game I've played
> >> all year, and one I recommend unreservedly) has the fuzzy.
> > ...
> >don't worry, there will always be consoles for morons like you only care about
> >graphics, these consoles never last long though and people like you are always
> >left wondering why it died so quickly, maybe someday you'll figure out that its
> >because gameplay matters more than graphics
>
> Well, If I have to be accused of being "a moron that only cares about
> graphics," at least I've been accused by someone so stupid that they
> don't even know how to read.
and you're obviously too stupid to realize what you wrote since the entire gist of
your post revolved around the PS2's "crappy" graphics
> Graphics -aren't- the only important thing. Gameplay -is- hideously
> important. That's why I recommended Ico, above. However, the PS2 critique of the
> dreamcast was "PS2's graphics are better." I'm just pointing out that for many
> games, this isn't true. In other words, I'm criticizing the PS2 on the basis
> Sony's marketing department chose.
whether it is true or not ultimately only matters to people who only care about
graphics, the rest of us don't care if a texture is a little less detailed or if a
model is missing a few polygons as long as the gameplay is good
> As someone that -does- worry about gameplay, the nice thing is that
> -every- console is for me, since there's nothing intrinsic to the
> PS2 (or any other console, for that matter) that makes gameplay on
> it better than any other. Hell, _Adventure_ for the Atari VCS
> is still one of the best games I've played to date. It's certainly
> better than Final Fantasy X, anyway (zing!)
more power to you, this however was not what your previous post was about
> I'll never understand why people take constructive criticism of
> a mere consumer electronics item so personally. And yes, that
> goes for owners of -every- major (and not-so-major) console, not
> just the (fuzzy) 600 pound gorilla that currently owns the market.
then perhaps you should look in the mirror and ask yourself why you personally felt
the need to defend the DC against the PS2's crappy graphics
> -Peter
> PS: And yes, I play my videogames on a TV like everyone
> else. The Fuzzy, I think, has more to do with poor development
> tools and programming technique than someone as crude as NTSC
> signalling. I'm comparing apples to apples.
it probably has more to do with your poor eyesight than anything else
> PPS: Well, I do play text adventures on my computer monitor.
> I guess that's because I care more about graphics than anything
> else, or something.
if a game was designed to be a text adventure then its a text adventure, it has
nothing to do with nitpicking minor graphical differences between different versions
of a game
Robert P Holley
Shoddy ports certainly haven't hurt EA in any way.
Of course you we're just taking your usual pot-shot at Sega/DC so that
explains your reasoning.
Robert P Holley
news:a2fbcv$2p4k$1...@news3.infoave.net...
What specific gameplay improvements have they made? I'm not worried so much
about graphics, but if VC did somehow improve the gameplay I'd like to hear
more about it.
WeaponX
> "WeaponX" <W...@null.ca> wrote in message news:3C49D06B...@null.ca...
> > "P. Lee" wrote:
> >
> > > I own both DC and PS2 versions of the game. It seems like the DC version
> > > looks brighter and controls better. Is it just me or does anybody else
> > > feel the same way?
> >
> > its just a quick dirt port of a DC game so it shouldn't surprise anyone if
> > its not as good, the NFL2K series has already fallen behind Madden and
> even
> > a newbie like NFL Fever so Sega can keep doing shoddy ports if they want,
> > they're just not going to last too long as a 3rd party publisher if they
> > continue to keep it up
>
> Shoddy ports certainly haven't hurt EA in any way.
they certainly haven't, shoddy ports of NFL2K hasn't hurt EA on any of the
platforms, fanboys were predicting the demise of EA when Sega went 3rd party,
that certainly hasn't happen, in fact Sega's the one who's on the defense now as
the NFL2K series has now fallen behind even a newcomer like NFL Fever
> Of course you we're just taking your usual pot-shot at Sega/DC so that
> explains your reasoning.
not at all, no one wants to see Sega thrive as a 3rd party company more than me